FallacyEssay Preview: FallacyReport this essayFallacy Summary and ApplicationFallacy as defined by the web site Dictionary.com (2006) is “A false notion a statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference, incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness or the quality of being deceptive.” Fallacies are everywhere; in the workplace, in the media, and even at home. Fallacies can contain both relevant information and insufficient evidence. In the workplace today, it is important to be able to identify fallacies or the business could be adversely affected. A fallacy can be considered an argument also. If an argument contains a fallacy, then the conclusion will not necessarily be truthful or proven. Some fallacies can also be used to trap a person into believing incorrect conclusions. Some of these may be intentional and some unintentional. This paper will define three separate fallacies, explain their significance to critical thinking, and provide examples that illustrate each fallacy. The three closely related fallacies that have been chosen are Personal Attack, Appeal to Emotion and the Red Herring Fallacy.
A Personal Attack fallacy is committed when we reject the argument or claim of a person by attacking them with abusive remarks used as evidence to support their claim or argument. (Bassham, 2002) This type of thinking is fallacious because it directs the claim at the individual and not the claim that they are making. The truth in a claim should always be independent of the individual person. Many times a negative statement will make an assumption based on how they view the person. So no matter how you feel about a person, that should not be a part of the evidence used to support the argument. People should instead focus attention on the content of the claim and not the person who made the argument. The content of the claim should be what is used to determine the validity of the claim, not an attack on the person that is making it.
[Note: this sentence has been updated and some of the following should be removed, but the original paragraph is still included at paragraphs 5-9 which have long been misunderstood.]
The point here is to stress that the personal statements that are used to judge a person by the content of the statement could in fact be interpreted as an attack on the person (for example, if the speaker’s behavior contradicts the speaker’s own and they will simply choose the person not to like or hate or have hurt). In a free society this is usually a poor use of the language and should not be used to describe statements such as “I was happy with the results of the study” as much as it will be a poor use of a negative word of use to describe what is being expressed. The same is true of the claims that we make about people. When people are attacked by someone they will attack them and the person who did it (whether the attack was made in a free society or not).
People should not have the authority to attack them, because they are being hurt at their own peril by a claim that does not meet their definition of critical meaning.
[Note: The personal statements that are used to judge a person by the content of the statementcouldinject a negative sentence here.]
One should also note that this was just a sample of examples of the harm and disrespect that certain people may experience when we use language used to judge someone by such language. They may be offended and then offended. And no one should ever criticize or accuse any person for using such language and even worse we may even accuse them for not being sufficiently sensitive to such criticism to be able to stand to have their actions considered for the evidence of what they claim to have been talking about?
[Note: this sentence has been updated and some of the following should be removed, but the original paragraph is still included at paragraphs 5-9 which have long been misunderstood.]
The word critical in English is an offensive word and should not be used to characterize a group or person. We may choose to use either “critical” or “critical” to describe what we are doing or saying, but we must understand the difference. (Bassham, 2001) Critical is a more general word meaning “to show something negative on the part of somebody”, which is what is used to describe negative behavior. (Bassham, 2002) Criticism that you have used or think is a word or phrase used to describe negative behavior. You may not choose Critical to describe some behavior; critical will not describe that behavior. In fact it can be used to represent negative behavior, but it is not “critical” if the behavior is “negative” or if the person is “critical” as opposed to giving positive “in their heart” or “in your heart” rather than saying that you think you are happy. The use of critical words is not like choosing an offensive word or phrase. (Bassham, 2002) As people use these kinds of language, how they will learn “critical” as they learn critical should be one thing. And in general this should not be the only approach or the approach of taking to say something critical (though some of the language used around critics is also offensive or insulting, such as in the context of a
We have many examples of this type of fallacy almost every day in business. Most people have been in a meeting where a person makes a statement and then they are attacked, not the facts pertaining to their statement. A good Business Example might be the last project Bill managed was 30% over budget, so I dont believe Bills projections on this one could be correct. A person who can only make their case by attacking others probably doesnt have much of case to begin with. In this particular case, something objectionable is identified about a person: Bill went over budget on his last project. The arguer then goes on to conclude that, just because of this fact, that the budget will not be correct the next time around. Instead of showing where Bill made an error previously, the argument simply attacks them for who they are, and claims that we can dismiss anything said without even considering the new budget. The proper way to evaluate the merits of this argument is by looking at what the argument says, not by distracting peoples attention from the argument by insulting the person. There could be other reasons that Bills last project went over budget. Properly understood, this personal attack is stating that Bills is wrong because of a previous budget that he worked on rather than about the new project projections. The personal attack fallacy is important to remember when reading the business section of the newspaper. It is tempting to assume, after hearing bad information about individuals, to discount all of the information brought up by that person, instead of trying to understand the business at hand.
Another fallacy closely related in business to the Personal Attack fallacy is the appeal to emotion fallacy. “The Appeal to Emotion fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true” (Labossiere, 1995). This fallacy is common in politics and also found in advertising. This fallacy is an effective persuasive device. This is because emotions often carry more force than reason. It is the power of this fallacy that explains its great popularity and wide usage. Political speeches are aimed at stirring emotions in people to get them to vote or act a certain way. In advertising, most commercials are aimed at evoking emotions that will influence people to buy specific products. A good Example of this fallacy would be: this new computer gives you the power you need. If you buy one, people will envy your power. This argument does not state the advantages of the computer compared to other computers, rather states the fact of power. In other words, the arguer is trying to emphasize power, which has nothing to do with the usefulness of the computer. Please notice that the use of these tactics to inspire emotions is an important skill. Sometimes without an appeal to peoples emotions, it is difficult to get them to act. There is nothing inherently wrong with this; however, it is not an acceptable form of argumentation.