http://steel-not-glass.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
steel-not-glass.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2010-05-20 01:40 am
steel-not-glass.livejournal.com) wrote in fandomhigh2010-05-20 01:40 am
Entry tags:
Logical Fallacies, Thursday, Period 3
The box of pastries was back on Cindy's desk today (eclairs this time) as was a thermos of coffee and several small paper cups. "So, what is a logic fallacy anyway?" Cindy asked, handing out several sheets of paper to the students. "The simple answer is that it's a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in someone's argument. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in people, or take advantage of social relationships between people. People who know what they are doing can use rhetorical tricks to hide the fact that they are employing logical fallacies to make their arguments harder to rebut, including spreading the different bits of their fallacious logic over a lot argument, making it hard for their opponent to find a specific piece to object to. If you really need to win an argument, a logical fallacy is a good technique to use, but be careful because it can backfire. In most cases, I'd suggest letting the strength of your argument or ideals be the real test." She shrugged a bit. "That's not always possible, however, but the best reason to learn these fallacies is to make sure you're not accidentally falling prey to them, either while arguing or listening, and to point out when your opponent is."
She held up the two handouts she'd passed around. "Today, we're talking about two types of logical fallacy, the if-by-whiskey and the No true Scotsman fallacies. Both of these fallacies stem from the attempt of one interlocutor to define the issue under debate. They are both relativist fallacies; that is, a fallacy in which when one person claims that something may be true for one person but not true for someone else. In the first case, the if-by-whiskey example, the claim is dependent upon the beliefs of the people listening. It allows the person arguing to make a strong claim on both sides of an issue, while the person listening only hears him agreeing with whatever they support. Most cases of the if-by-whiskey argument are not as obvious as this one; the interlocutor will make his case, and if someone disagrees, they then carefully rephrase to come out on the other side as well."
"As for the No True Scotsman argument," Cindy continued, "uses a tautology to force an assertion to be right in the face of other arguments. It comes into play when someone makes a universal claim, which is then challenged by a counterexample. Rather than rejecting the original claim, the interlocutor denies the validity of the counterexample by saying that his claim only extends to a true example of something, thus making the counterexample appear to be lesser and wrong. So, look over these handouts, familiarize yourselves with the terms, and let's talk."
[OCD here]
She held up the two handouts she'd passed around. "Today, we're talking about two types of logical fallacy, the if-by-whiskey and the No true Scotsman fallacies. Both of these fallacies stem from the attempt of one interlocutor to define the issue under debate. They are both relativist fallacies; that is, a fallacy in which when one person claims that something may be true for one person but not true for someone else. In the first case, the if-by-whiskey example, the claim is dependent upon the beliefs of the people listening. It allows the person arguing to make a strong claim on both sides of an issue, while the person listening only hears him agreeing with whatever they support. Most cases of the if-by-whiskey argument are not as obvious as this one; the interlocutor will make his case, and if someone disagrees, they then carefully rephrase to come out on the other side as well."
"As for the No True Scotsman argument," Cindy continued, "uses a tautology to force an assertion to be right in the face of other arguments. It comes into play when someone makes a universal claim, which is then challenged by a counterexample. Rather than rejecting the original claim, the interlocutor denies the validity of the counterexample by saying that his claim only extends to a true example of something, thus making the counterexample appear to be lesser and wrong. So, look over these handouts, familiarize yourselves with the terms, and let's talk."
[OCD here]
Talk to the TA
Re: Talk to the TA
Hmmm.