Art of Deception--Refutation of Analogy
p 139
2 types, literal and figurative
show the dissimilarities between the thing and its comparison
show the weakness in the comparisons
example, comparing God's work with the way humans work
Can God be proven because of the way humans work?--set up a perplexing problem.
Refutation of Conclusion
the conclusion is too extreme
the name given is weird
reduce the conclusion to emotion
attack with the Latin name
appeals are exposed
Hasty generalizations
You jumped to that conclusion far too quickly
The sampling is far too small (stats)
the group blows up too quickly
apply a small group with the whole group
Division
May be true, but the full acceptance requires more data
truth for a small group may not be the principle for the whole group
Accident
a single success may not be the answer
general principles are not derived from one-time accidents
there are other general principles, negating the proposed one
overextend the specific point: interfering in a country will go world wide to all countries
it doesn't meet a useful goal
Dilemma
call the theory contrary rather than contradictory. If the president says something, he is against all the countries values rather than that it is a single exception
the idea is a dilemma--it diverges from the speaker's points
Nonverbal
upstage and distract the audience
These tricks seem to be universal in their execution. Rather than concede to any points, the opposition goes through all kinds of distractions, some by misrepresenting the motives behind the points, but some are merely distracting. The audience needs to demand the data. Their are some real problems in the opposition's behaviors, but his tactics may not be fair to the speaker.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Art of Deception; Refutation of Theoretical Constructs
Art of Deception
Refutation of Theoretical Constructs
p 136
People distrust abstractions. Use that distrust.
By their nature it is easy to point to 2 or 3 examples of something that works contrary to the premise.
It's similar to discussion Freud's arguments about the conscious and subconscious.
I see this as fairly common. This is why politicians parade guests who are harmed by particular public policies. Show Desaline, the 103 year old African American who stood in line for hours to vote. That visual undermines the oppositions voting law strengthening reforms.
Refutation of Classification
p 137
The opposition makes a claim, and classifies a particular issue. You show that the classification is wrong, and thus undermine his other claims as well.
The president calls for immigration reform as a necessary public reformation of our times. The opposition calls for economic reforms and calls his call a secondary and less important issue.
Refutation of Definition
p 137
You cite the definition of your opponent. (Sean Hannity calls liberals particularly annoying things.)
You expose it as weird or wrong.
You could call something circular thinking. It could also use equivocation.
This looks like a strong way to expose the limited thinking of an argument to the people.
One particular argument comes to mind:
Assertion (George Bush). We are fighting for freedom. "They" want to destroy our freedom.
Subtexts: His ideas are freedom.
American democracy is freedom.
Terrorism is anti-freedom.
Problems to exploit? What is "freedom"?
Be careful what you use as your argument, and define your terms and vocabulary, especially to dispel the inevitable attack on a "general" term like freedom or love. To do this render up your definition and account for the most salient particulars that would unravel your argument. Otherwise the argument will appear all "pathos" and little logic or ethics.
Refutation of Theoretical Constructs
p 136
People distrust abstractions. Use that distrust.
By their nature it is easy to point to 2 or 3 examples of something that works contrary to the premise.
It's similar to discussion Freud's arguments about the conscious and subconscious.
I see this as fairly common. This is why politicians parade guests who are harmed by particular public policies. Show Desaline, the 103 year old African American who stood in line for hours to vote. That visual undermines the oppositions voting law strengthening reforms.
Refutation of Classification
p 137
The opposition makes a claim, and classifies a particular issue. You show that the classification is wrong, and thus undermine his other claims as well.
The president calls for immigration reform as a necessary public reformation of our times. The opposition calls for economic reforms and calls his call a secondary and less important issue.
Refutation of Definition
p 137
You cite the definition of your opponent. (Sean Hannity calls liberals particularly annoying things.)
You expose it as weird or wrong.
You could call something circular thinking. It could also use equivocation.
This looks like a strong way to expose the limited thinking of an argument to the people.
One particular argument comes to mind:
Assertion (George Bush). We are fighting for freedom. "They" want to destroy our freedom.
Subtexts: His ideas are freedom.
American democracy is freedom.
Terrorism is anti-freedom.
Problems to exploit? What is "freedom"?
Be careful what you use as your argument, and define your terms and vocabulary, especially to dispel the inevitable attack on a "general" term like freedom or love. To do this render up your definition and account for the most salient particulars that would unravel your argument. Otherwise the argument will appear all "pathos" and little logic or ethics.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Art of Deception
Art of Deception (continued)
"Refutation of Statistics" p 128
Evidence may be false
Use of statistics means that you cannot get at something directly.
For statistics to mean anything they must be representative and random. One of the worst polls ever done was the presidential election of 1936, when a sampling from Oshkosh predicted that FDR would lose massively. This was absolutely wrong because of the way the poll occurred.
Declare the other guy's stats wrong.
Question the methods and strategies used to get the information.
Use other statistics that conflict.
Do they measure what the speaker says?
Use the stats with an ad hominem attack.
Attack stats altogether.
Can't predict the unique from the general.
Extrapolationis too risky to make conclusions
Gambler's fallacy.
The thinking skews the math.
Who is more likely to win?
Statistics are too easily twisted. They begin to collect all kinds of emotional elements that do not believe, and they are too easily applied to unique cases. In fact their usefulness is hooked to science. Because there is a 50% chance of something will happen does not equate to the possibility of its occurring in real life.
"Refutation of Statistics" p 128
Evidence may be false
Use of statistics means that you cannot get at something directly.
For statistics to mean anything they must be representative and random. One of the worst polls ever done was the presidential election of 1936, when a sampling from Oshkosh predicted that FDR would lose massively. This was absolutely wrong because of the way the poll occurred.
Declare the other guy's stats wrong.
Question the methods and strategies used to get the information.
Use other statistics that conflict.
Do they measure what the speaker says?
Use the stats with an ad hominem attack.
Attack stats altogether.
Can't predict the unique from the general.
Extrapolationis too risky to make conclusions
Gambler's fallacy.
The thinking skews the math.
Who is more likely to win?
Statistics are too easily twisted. They begin to collect all kinds of emotional elements that do not believe, and they are too easily applied to unique cases. In fact their usefulness is hooked to science. Because there is a 50% chance of something will happen does not equate to the possibility of its occurring in real life.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Art of Deception--Refutation of Precedent
Art of Deception (Continued) p 127
Refutation of Precedent
3 major premises:
Because it is the historical fact, it must be protected. Example the eminent domain and what governments do, when they consider a property more valuable to the community than to the landowner
The protected thing does not apply to the problem at hand. An attempt to show that it has qualities that are distinctly contrary than what the person uses to protect his personal domain
Push the protected item it to its extreme. Undermining the premise with exaggerations destroys the argument.
If ound this discussion very informative in the current battle very gun rights. I see both proponents and opponents of gun rights using the tactics.
Gun right opponents says: The Constitution has always guaranteed that citizens can have and own guns.
Employ these refutations:
1. The community would be far safer with the guns. Draw a picture of people living safely.
2 No, we are not "controlling guns." We are only asking for control over specific military level guns that have no use to the regular citizen
c. If you let this go, every citizen will be brandishing a firearm.
Gun right proponent argues:
Smart gun control will make the citizens safer
Employ these refutaions:
1. Historically gun control has not let to safer conditions. Illustrate the communities with a long history of gun violence with gun controls in place.
2. Gun control in other countries would not work in a country with more guns than people.
3. If gun control begins, it will eventually lead to gun confiscation.
Both sides in the debate are employing these refutations of precedent. They try to prove they have real history at their disposal. Bot are savvy enough to find plenty of precedents for their side.
What this does in my own mind is to cause me more than ever to stay out of the discussion. The premises that both sides assign themselves to seem absurd. Circumstantil evidence would seem to trump any argument either side might say. Ultimately the question will probably need the intercession of the Supreme Court, and whatever it is will undoubtedly ensure that the issue does not go away.
This discussion illustrates more about the entrenchment in arguments more than posing any remediation.
Refutation of Precedent
3 major premises:
Because it is the historical fact, it must be protected. Example the eminent domain and what governments do, when they consider a property more valuable to the community than to the landowner
The protected thing does not apply to the problem at hand. An attempt to show that it has qualities that are distinctly contrary than what the person uses to protect his personal domain
Push the protected item it to its extreme. Undermining the premise with exaggerations destroys the argument.
If ound this discussion very informative in the current battle very gun rights. I see both proponents and opponents of gun rights using the tactics.
Gun right opponents says: The Constitution has always guaranteed that citizens can have and own guns.
Employ these refutations:
1. The community would be far safer with the guns. Draw a picture of people living safely.
2 No, we are not "controlling guns." We are only asking for control over specific military level guns that have no use to the regular citizen
c. If you let this go, every citizen will be brandishing a firearm.
Gun right proponent argues:
Smart gun control will make the citizens safer
Employ these refutaions:
1. Historically gun control has not let to safer conditions. Illustrate the communities with a long history of gun violence with gun controls in place.
2. Gun control in other countries would not work in a country with more guns than people.
3. If gun control begins, it will eventually lead to gun confiscation.
Both sides in the debate are employing these refutations of precedent. They try to prove they have real history at their disposal. Bot are savvy enough to find plenty of precedents for their side.
What this does in my own mind is to cause me more than ever to stay out of the discussion. The premises that both sides assign themselves to seem absurd. Circumstantil evidence would seem to trump any argument either side might say. Ultimately the question will probably need the intercession of the Supreme Court, and whatever it is will undoubtedly ensure that the issue does not go away.
This discussion illustrates more about the entrenchment in arguments more than posing any remediation.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Joe Scarborough
Joe Scarborough
Morning Joe
Feb 19, 2013
Joe Scarborough conflates the rise of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News with the losses that the Republican have encountered in the past 6 election cycles.
These people energize the political base, but they also turn off the general population.
This descriptive comment demonstrates a "rational" ad populum appeal to the party to straighten out its idealogical and hardening political talk, if they want to win future elections. He is giving a middle and more moderate choice to the audience to join him in cleaning out the over-zealous voices. I find it instructive that he is throwing Rush Limbaugh and Fox News under the bus. And how does it relate to the other side--ie, MSNBC?
Morning Joe
Feb 19, 2013
Joe Scarborough conflates the rise of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News with the losses that the Republican have encountered in the past 6 election cycles.
These people energize the political base, but they also turn off the general population.
This descriptive comment demonstrates a "rational" ad populum appeal to the party to straighten out its idealogical and hardening political talk, if they want to win future elections. He is giving a middle and more moderate choice to the audience to join him in cleaning out the over-zealous voices. I find it instructive that he is throwing Rush Limbaugh and Fox News under the bus. And how does it relate to the other side--ie, MSNBC?
Art of Deception--Refutation of Ad Populum
Art of Deception--Refutation of Ad Populum
a continuation of previous readings
p 125
This is an overt appeal to the majority within the audience, done to squelch the voice of any minority or dissenting opinion.
By maintain the majority view, ideas like factionalism are minimized, thus bringing stability to the nation (attributed to James Madison in the Federalist Papers).
Another twist: expose something in the majority opinion that is just wrong.
This method is important when dealing with intellectuals and experts in the field because they are more likely to dissent.
I find this discussion fairly fascinating. I think that a group like the Republican minority leadership (very likely could come from either party, so I am not attacking only one side) have employed this strategy. They make a comment about President Obama being a socialist or communist. Parsing this we have ad hominem of name calling which is based on the ad populum bias toward capitalism. The allegation would require that the speakers would illustrate the capitalist value and ideal to counter-argue against the equality values of the dissenting view. To soften the blow they can concede to certain amount of social legislation as not to appear too Randian.
I can see how this strategy can appear both ethical and how it can fall into a fallacy. The approach, in order to work must promote a majority appeal. I see how both parties have employed the approach and how each has been targeted by it.
What I find even more interesting is the usage of visual arguments. The Republicans show the president playing golf while the country burns. The Democrats show the Republican courting the most selfish of capitalists. Devious and effective.
a continuation of previous readings
p 125
This is an overt appeal to the majority within the audience, done to squelch the voice of any minority or dissenting opinion.
By maintain the majority view, ideas like factionalism are minimized, thus bringing stability to the nation (attributed to James Madison in the Federalist Papers).
Another twist: expose something in the majority opinion that is just wrong.
This method is important when dealing with intellectuals and experts in the field because they are more likely to dissent.
I find this discussion fairly fascinating. I think that a group like the Republican minority leadership (very likely could come from either party, so I am not attacking only one side) have employed this strategy. They make a comment about President Obama being a socialist or communist. Parsing this we have ad hominem of name calling which is based on the ad populum bias toward capitalism. The allegation would require that the speakers would illustrate the capitalist value and ideal to counter-argue against the equality values of the dissenting view. To soften the blow they can concede to certain amount of social legislation as not to appear too Randian.
I can see how this strategy can appear both ethical and how it can fall into a fallacy. The approach, in order to work must promote a majority appeal. I see how both parties have employed the approach and how each has been targeted by it.
What I find even more interesting is the usage of visual arguments. The Republicans show the president playing golf while the country burns. The Democrats show the Republican courting the most selfish of capitalists. Devious and effective.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Art of Deception--Refutation of Authority
Capaldi and Smith, The Art of Deception
"Refutation of Authority", p 122
2 ways to refute: ad hominem attack or provide counter-authorities
6 types of ad hominem:
1. show the speaker as inconsistent
2. expose the speakers group where he aligned himself
3. discrepancies between theory and practice, as stated by the speaker
4. expose extreme abstractions as out of touch with reality
5. general attack against the expert concerning his expertise
6. your own experts. Any expert that disagrees with the speaker, even if they are not in line with your own
This discussion is quite instructive about the use of creative fallacy. These things are generally hostile towards a real argument, but rather undermine the message, any message, coming from an opponent.
It doesn't take much time to see this as a universal condition in the public discourse today. Take any public official.
"Refutation of Authority", p 122
2 ways to refute: ad hominem attack or provide counter-authorities
6 types of ad hominem:
1. show the speaker as inconsistent
2. expose the speakers group where he aligned himself
3. discrepancies between theory and practice, as stated by the speaker
4. expose extreme abstractions as out of touch with reality
5. general attack against the expert concerning his expertise
6. your own experts. Any expert that disagrees with the speaker, even if they are not in line with your own
This discussion is quite instructive about the use of creative fallacy. These things are generally hostile towards a real argument, but rather undermine the message, any message, coming from an opponent.
It doesn't take much time to see this as a universal condition in the public discourse today. Take any public official.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)