Skip to main content

A Refresher on Rhetoric and Reasoning

I didn't write this... it was posted on an AOL music forum in 1992. Lots of flame wars were breaking out in early days of social networking. This is a really good synopsis of rules of debate and logical fallacy. If this were a disease and could become an epidemic, we could all be well again!


---------------------- THE ORIGINAL POST -------------------------


When arguing a case or examining the arguments of another, look for these common fallacies. Avoiding these problems makes a case stronger. Further, finding these fallacies in other's statements can make your rebuttal easier. Argue the point, but don't belittle the person.


The "Straw Man" fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it. This often happens when someone quotes another member out of context.


"Circular Reasoning" occurs when stating in one's proof that which one is supposed to be proving.


The "Missing the Point" fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument appear to lead up to one particular conclusion but then a completely different conclusion is drawn.


The "Red Herring" fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to some totally different issue. Sticking to the topic of each individual folder will minimize the impact of this fallacy.


The "Hasty Generalization" fallacy occurs when there is a likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group.


The "Ad Hominem" fallacy occurs when an arguer's post appeals to feelings or prejudices as opposed to logic. It also occurs when an arguer moves a discussion to a personal level through character assassination or personal attacks.


The "False Cause" fallacy occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined casual connection that probably does not exist.


The "Amphiboly" fallacy occurs when the arguer misinterprets a statement that is ambiguous, owing to some structural defect and proceeds to draw a conclusion on this faulty interpretation. Again, this can happen when someone is quoted out of context. If a statement seems unclear, ask the person about it.


The "Composition" fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of characteristic from the parts of something into the whole. In other words, the fallacy occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain characteristic, it follows that the whole has that characteristic, too. However, the situation is such that the characteristic in question cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to whole.


The "Suppressed Evidence" fallacy is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Constitution on Mosques

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... Article II, Section 2: "...he (the President) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Just last week, Sarah Palin is seen on camera telling an Alaskan woman that she was working to "...elect candidates that understand the constitution." Today, we hear, a woman who appears to be this same Sarah Palin urging, "Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque?" Does Ms. Palin not understand the Constitution? Congress is prohibited from making any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and the President has absolutely no power to establish laws AT ALL -- not in the Constitution. He should not offer an opinion... he should simply, as he has done, restate the content of the Constitution. Ms. Palin should take the time to read the US Constitution and stop cynically trying to stir up political ...

After the 2016 Election

Yesterday was election day and today, I'm immensely depressed. Songwriter that I am, I often find inspiration in loss -- and today, I'm inspired, therefore, I write. The results of the "election" verify what we've suspected -- our country is deeply polarized. It's hard to imagine a more clear cut choice that Trump vs. Clinton. The results clearly delineate the two sides and it's very evenly divided -- the popular vote was roughly 50%-50% with Clinton slightly ahead. By examining the exit polls: If you are a white woman with a college degree, you voted for Clinton, 51% to 43%. If you are a white woman with no college degree, you voted for Trump, 62% to 34%. If you are a white male with a college degree, you voted for Trump, 54% to 39%. If you are a white man with no college degree, you voted for Trump 72% to 23%. ALL other groups sampled, women and men, college or no college, voted overwhelmingly for Ms. Clinton. For the record, I voted for Bern...

How to Lead a Band - Part I

OK... I'm not Bob Wills, Woody Herman, Benny Goodman, or Johann Strauss the Elder, nor even the Younger. I'm just a seat of the pants geetar picker who started his first band at age 12, and has been at it now for 64 years. If you're reading this after 2024, then add an appropriate number of years on to that figure... I assume that if you can read, you can probably add. I've played probably close to 10,000 gigs plus or minus, both as leader and sideman, so this blog comes from the perspective of both. I've played for as many as 25,000 people, and as few as zero... that's right -- ZERO. (I'm not sure I like ZERO, but I'd far preferred the ONE GOOD LISTENER to 25,000 inebriated idiots, just for the record.) First, here's a few things that leaders should be aware of, followed by some things that sidemen should be aware of. If you're in a "band" and it's very democratic and no one is really the leader... enjoy your childhood. This is...