Most rhetoric courses spend some time on defining and warning against using logical fallacies when composing arguments.
Most people are aware that using an "ad hominem" argument is not acceptable -- that is one where we simply attack the person making a point, and was popular on the playground when I was a kid: "You're a butthead!" Most of us have heard of the slippery slope fallacy -- "OMG! This horrible thing will happen because we made that unwise choice, and then things will get even worse. Arghh!"
Politics are awash in both of these.
But the political fallacy most on my mind these days is a form of "a priori" argument. This is a corruption of logos that begins with a made up fact or trend and THEN builds arguments to counter that fictional starting point.
Despite there being no discernable evidence of election fraud in 2020, many states are considering legislation that is designed to make voting "more secure." That seems like a classic case of a solution in search of a problem, and I'm sure this strategy will face all sorts of legal opposition and will animate both political parties for years.
To overcome an "a priori" fallacy you need to be able to prove that it is false but also get those who hold those false beliefs to change their opinion about that original set of "facts."
That is where things are stuck right now. One party has invested so much effort in creating and sustaining the election fraud Big Lie that it is unlikely that it can quickly pivot to another strategy. The other major party is forced to oppose even reasonable adjustments to voting.
The bad news for a writer looking to sharpen arguments is that logic fails when there are errors in the "a priori" assumptions the writer or audience hold.
A classic syllogism:
Socrates is human.
All humans are mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
If we dispute that first statement, or if we simply choose to ignore it, confusion and misinformation prevails.
Need further evidence as to why establishing clear and supported basic facts are essential to creating successful arguments?
No comments:
Post a Comment