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?
Showing posts with label ad populum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ad populum. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
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)