Part 2 arguments in practice reasoning: effective or faulty? some of the common fallacies (зд. Ошибка в аргументации)
Reasons why faulty reasoning occurs are various and many. Some of them are hasty generalization, attacking for personal characteristics, false dilemma, an appeal to patriotism, etc.
For example, on the basis of experience with two or three members of an ethnic group we may form the prejudice that all members of the group share the characteristics that we have attributed to the two or three in our experience. The statement “All British are very reserved” is an example of what is called HASTY GENERALIZATION.
You might hear someone complain “How can my physician advice me on a diet? He’s overweight”. This accusation ignores the validity of the advice the doctor may offer. This type of fallacy is ATTACKING FOR PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS.
The statement “Love football or you are not a man” poses a situation which is called FALSE DILEMMA.
One more common fallacy is AN APPEAL TO PATRIOTISM, which may allow people to omit evidence. In the following advertisement the makers of Zippo lighters make such an appeal in urging readers to buy their product – It’s a grand old lighter Zippo – the grand old lighter that’s right here in the good old USA!
IT’S HELPFUL TO REMEMBER that, even if you cannot name the particular fallacy, you can learn to recognize it and avoid it in your argument.
1. The following is a claim and a number of supporting statements. Decide whether the reasoning is faulty or clearly expressed. Be prepared to defend your answers.
Model: The meteorologist was wrong in predicting the weather for May. Obviously the meteorologist is unreliable.
Faulty reasoning. A faulty prediction for one month is not enough for an accusation of unreliability.
a) I know three well-to-do persons who have terrible tempers, and since my brother in-law is a well-to-do person, I’ll bet he has a terrible temper, too.
b) People will gamble anyway, so why not legalize gambling in the country?
c) None of the eighteen-year-old people I know ever read newspapers, so how could they vote if they don’t even know what the issues are?
d) Women should not be permitted to work as judges because this job is for men only.
e) If the politician is dishonest in his or her personal life, we may be justified in thinking that the person will also behave dishonestly in public office.
f) Bribery is a common thing in many countries, so why struggle against it?
2. Now read the interview where an English career criminal discusses the philosophy of his life. Then summarize the principal criticism of the reasoning he uses to justify his criminal occupation.
T
HE
PHILOSOPHY OF A CRIMINAL
Reporter: “My first question is this: If you were to describe yourself in one word, would the description invariably be “A criminal?”
Criminal: “Yes, definitely. That’s what I am, I never think of myself in any other way.”
Reporter: “And have you any intention of changing, of going straight or reforming?”
Criminal: “None whatsoever.”
Reporter: “You don’t think, then, that there’s anything wrong in not working for your living?”
Criminal: “But I do work for my living. Most crime – unless it’s the senseless, petty-thieving sort (зд. мелкое воровство) – is quite hard work, you know. Planning a job, working out all the details of the best way to do it – and then carrying it out, under a lot of nervous strain and tension – and having to run round afterwards – all this needs a lot of thinking and effort and concentration. It certainly is “work”, don’t kid yourself about that.
But anyway this whole point’s not all that simple. A lot of other people don’t “work” for their living, in the way you mean – but nobody goes on at them like they do at criminals. Quite a large proportion of the “upper classes”, for instance. You can see them any day round Piccadilly – nattily dressed half-wits who’ve never done a stroke of work in their lives, spending all their time trying to get rid of the money their fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers left them.”
(T. Parker and R. Allerton. A Criminal Justifies Himself. The Courage of His Convictions)
Answer the following questions.
1. How does the criminal justify his way of living?
2. Do you agree that most crime is quite hard work?
3. Is it correct to compare a criminal with people from the “upper classes” who don’t have to work for their living? Why or why not?
A CYNICAL BRAND OF AMERICAN MATERIALISM
(from “The Ugly Truth about Sportsmanship” by David Heilbroner)