In Chapter 17 of our textbook, "Everything's an Argument", it talks about the fallacies of an argument. Fallacies are controversial parts of arguments that are flawed, usually by their nature or structure. They alert the reader because they raise questions about the ethics of the argument. There are three different fallacies of arguments the chapter discusses; emotional, ethical and logical. Fallacies of emotional arguments involve scare tactics, either-or choices, slippery slopes, sentimental appeals and bandwagon appeals. Fallacies of ethical arguments involve appeals to false authority, dogmatism and ad hominem arguments. Fallacies of logical arguments involve hasty generalizations, faulty causalities, begging the question, equivocation, non sequiturs, the straw man and faulty analogies.
Dogmatism refers to the style of writing in an argument where the writer assumes that there is no other acceptable opinion than his own and that the truth is self-evident. Dogmatism involves incorporating "everyone" in society to have the same bold opinion about a certain topic. It creates fallacy because it almost seems that the writer is being arrogant to any other opinions but his own. It alerts the reader because it makes them question the writer's argument that there are other possible opinions and the topic could be debatable. An example would be if someone made the argument, "There is no way that anyone could argue that abortion is anything but murder." This is a very bold statement that creates fallacy, specifically dogmatism, for an argument. It is saying there are no other alternatives when considering if abortion is murder, it is always murder and everyone else would rationally agree with that statement. It creates fallacy for the reader because it questions that abortion is always considered murder and in a way creates suspicion because the writer's argument is so bold and closed-minded. It makes them think, "Well wait, abortion isn't always considered murder" and subconsciously makes the reader provide evidence where abortion is not murder to correct the writer. This creates a problem where the reader does not trust the writer and therefore the writer's argument does not serve as much as a purpose than if it was credible and not so closed-mindedly bold. Arguments should be straight-forward but also sensitive to anyone that could read it so it is believable and the writer has an ethical appeal to his arguments.
The blog is very informative of chapter 17. It summarizes the three types off fallacies and goes in depth on dogmatism. The three types of fallacies outlined are emotion, logic, and ethos. This is similar to the way the types of arguments are divided and shows the faults that can be found in these arguments. Kristen does a nice job of going giving the definition of dogmatism and examples of it. The author that presents only one view of whether abortion is acceptable or not and holds that view with society is a good example of dogmatism because whether abortion is acceptable or not is so controversial. It is obvious that there is not just one general view held by a community. There are however multiple views of whether it is moral or not and whether it should be allowed or it should not be allowed. There was even a Supreme Court case on this topic, Roe v Wade. These fallacies really do alert the reader as you mention in your blog. It can make readers question the credibility of the argument. I know when I read articles that only exert one position and believes that is the only position held by the community, I get a bit annoyed. I also tend to stop reading half way through because that article begins to bore me and such. This is probably also one of the reasons I never read fashion type articles because they always exert the author’s taste of what is clothes are fashionable and what is not.
ReplyDelete