Fallacies from George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant":
"The young Buddhist priests were the worst of all. There were several thousands of them in the town and none of them seemed to have anything to do except stand on street corners and jeer at Europeans."
Hasty generalization. I highly doubt that every single young Buddhist priest in the town was always outside with literally nothing better to do than annoy Europeans.
"...with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts."
Reductio ad absurdum all the way. He doesn't really mean that.
"It was a bit of fun to them, as it would be to an English crowd; besides they wanted the meat."
Hasty generalization again. Maybe they were already headed in that direction, maybe they were worried about the elephant's welfare, maybe they were worried about Orwell's welfare... Moral of the story is that Orwell has no way of knowing that each and every one of those people were following him because "it was a bit of fun to them" and "they wanted the meat."
Monday, November 26, 2012
Fallacies: Churchill's Speech
Fallacies from Churchill's speech "Our Duty in India" March 18, 1931:
"I am against this surrender to Gandhi. I am against these conversations and agreements between Lord Irwin and Mr. Gandhi."
This is the same fallacy as Homer Simpson makes in chapter 14. Here Churchill implies that the conversations are equal to surrender. It's a false comparison.
"You will never be able to come to terms with Gandhi."
Seriously Churchill? Let's not be so ridiculous. This fallacy is completely reductio ad absurdum.
"Why should these unpractised, unproved, unrepresentative, self-chosen groups of Indian politicians disdain the immense possibilities offered within the limits of the Statutory Commission's report, and demand an immediate setting up of a United States of India, with themselves in control, and the British army at their orders?"
Hasty generalization, how does he know that all Indian politicians are unpractised, unproved, and and unrepresentative?
"I am against this surrender to Gandhi. I am against these conversations and agreements between Lord Irwin and Mr. Gandhi."
This is the same fallacy as Homer Simpson makes in chapter 14. Here Churchill implies that the conversations are equal to surrender. It's a false comparison.
"You will never be able to come to terms with Gandhi."
Seriously Churchill? Let's not be so ridiculous. This fallacy is completely reductio ad absurdum.
"Why should these unpractised, unproved, unrepresentative, self-chosen groups of Indian politicians disdain the immense possibilities offered within the limits of the Statutory Commission's report, and demand an immediate setting up of a United States of India, with themselves in control, and the British army at their orders?"
Hasty generalization, how does he know that all Indian politicians are unpractised, unproved, and and unrepresentative?
Fallacies: Gandhi's Speech
Fallacies from Mahatma Gandhi's famous speech at Kingsley Hall in 1931:
"That law then which governs all life is God. "
This could fall under many fallacy categories, such as fallacy of ignorance or misinterpreting the evidence. We can't prove that God does not exist, but that does not mean that He exists. Also, no examples are given to support this conclusion.
"And is this power benevolent or malevolent?"
This fallacy is that it is possible for the power to be something other than just benevolent or malevolent, so it's a false dilemma.
"I see it as purely benevolent, for I can see that in the midst of death life persists, in the midst of untruth truth persists, in the midst of darkness light persists."
This fallacy is a misinterpretation of evidence, because one could say that while "in the midst of death life persists," but that evidence could also be interpreted as "in the midst of life death persists".
"That law then which governs all life is God. "
This could fall under many fallacy categories, such as fallacy of ignorance or misinterpreting the evidence. We can't prove that God does not exist, but that does not mean that He exists. Also, no examples are given to support this conclusion.
"And is this power benevolent or malevolent?"
This fallacy is that it is possible for the power to be something other than just benevolent or malevolent, so it's a false dilemma.
"I see it as purely benevolent, for I can see that in the midst of death life persists, in the midst of untruth truth persists, in the midst of darkness light persists."
This fallacy is a misinterpretation of evidence, because one could say that while "in the midst of death life persists," but that evidence could also be interpreted as "in the midst of life death persists".
Monday, November 12, 2012
Testing
Yes the election is over, yet the political ads are still out there and what better source of rhetoric than a video trying to convince about three hundred million people to vote for one man to be their president. I'm using this political ad from the Obama Biden campaign to practice detecting methods of persuasion.
The Needs Test
My interests are having a job in a few years and not having to worry about money. It appears from this video that Obama cares about the American worker and believes in helping him or her continue to work. Sounds about right, our interests line up.
Checking the Extremes
The opposition in this case is the Republican party, and members of that party are described as having "turned their backs" on the American workers. A direct example is even cited of Mitt Romney wanting to "let detroit go bankrupt". It is described as an extreme, turning your back on something can be seen as an extreme action, but then this claim is backed up with evidence... So does it count as calling something extreme and therefore calling itself extreme? I see governor Romney's comment as extreme, because it does sound very extreme. But by doing that do I turn myself into an extremist? Things to ponder.
That Depends
This is a tough one to apply here because he's focusing on one issue in particular. He doesn't say "that depends" anywhere, but shows that he can respond appropriately and successfully to at least one issue. Nowhere does he say how he would respond to a different issue in similar circumstances, but nor does he say that this is the one way to fix everything. So this test isn't really applicable here.
Comparable Experience
Well, the persuader in this case doesn't exactly show an example from his real life. He is not an American worker in the auto industry. But in a way I can see how he does; the whole video is an example of Obama's life because it shows how he handled the situation successfully. But then again it's not exactly a comparable experience because not many people get the chance to be president of the USA. Another one to ponder because of the uniqueness of the situation.
and last but not least,
Sussing
The persuader here definitely cut straight to the chase of the issue. From the first words of the video he is talking about the issue at hand, and he stays on that one topic for the entire video. It is concise and comprehendible, the persuader doesn't try to cram too many things into one video. He keeps it short, sweet and to the point.
The Needs Test
My interests are having a job in a few years and not having to worry about money. It appears from this video that Obama cares about the American worker and believes in helping him or her continue to work. Sounds about right, our interests line up.
Checking the Extremes
The opposition in this case is the Republican party, and members of that party are described as having "turned their backs" on the American workers. A direct example is even cited of Mitt Romney wanting to "let detroit go bankrupt". It is described as an extreme, turning your back on something can be seen as an extreme action, but then this claim is backed up with evidence... So does it count as calling something extreme and therefore calling itself extreme? I see governor Romney's comment as extreme, because it does sound very extreme. But by doing that do I turn myself into an extremist? Things to ponder.
That Depends
This is a tough one to apply here because he's focusing on one issue in particular. He doesn't say "that depends" anywhere, but shows that he can respond appropriately and successfully to at least one issue. Nowhere does he say how he would respond to a different issue in similar circumstances, but nor does he say that this is the one way to fix everything. So this test isn't really applicable here.
Comparable Experience
Well, the persuader in this case doesn't exactly show an example from his real life. He is not an American worker in the auto industry. But in a way I can see how he does; the whole video is an example of Obama's life because it shows how he handled the situation successfully. But then again it's not exactly a comparable experience because not many people get the chance to be president of the USA. Another one to ponder because of the uniqueness of the situation.
and last but not least,
Sussing
The persuader here definitely cut straight to the chase of the issue. From the first words of the video he is talking about the issue at hand, and he stays on that one topic for the entire video. It is concise and comprehendible, the persuader doesn't try to cram too many things into one video. He keeps it short, sweet and to the point.
Calling Fouls
"Rhetoric is an open palm, dialectic a closed fist" - Zeno(For more information on Zeno, watch this video)
This aphorism by Zeno opens chapter fifteen. To understand it, we must first understand what rhetoric and dialectic are. Rhetoric, as we know, is "the art of influence, friendship, and eloquence, of ready wit and irrefutable logic" (4). Dialectic, however, is a new one. Dialectic is "the mannerly dialogue of formal logic... Precise, self-contained, and boring" (155).
So, rhetoric keeps the argument open. Dialectic on the other hand commits the foul of "turning an argument into a fight" (155). Dialectic, with its closed and uninviting fist, blocks the argument or "argues the inarguable" (158). Rhetoric is the open discussion where dialectic is the fight. The fight can be many things, yet it always keeps the discussion or argument from moving forward and being productive.
This closed fist could be a fallacy, the use of an incorrect tense, humiliation, innuendo, the use of threats, or refusing to consider the other side. These are Heinrichs' fouls. He insists that there are no rules in rhetoric, so these things bring the argument "out of bounds," hence the name fouls instead of errors or sins (170).
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Paradigm
So, the word paradigm occurs one time in this chapter. One time. Once. I almost missed it actually. I could tell I was nearing the end of the chapter and beginning to worry because the topic of my blog was still apparently nonexistant. I panicked, thinking that I would have to read the entire chapter again. I began blaming Anderson Cooper and North Carolina for taking my attention away from the text. I began to question the purpose behind watching election night, the winner will still be same the winner tomorrow morning. I found myself reaching for the remote control when, suddenly, I saw it. There, a side note on page 131: Paradigm. The definition is as follows, "the point you prove with examples is technically called a paradigm - a rule that you apply to the choice you want your audience to make" (131).
So Homer's "I'm not a bad guy! I work hard, and I love my kids. So why should I spend half my Sunday hearing about how I'm going to hell?" uses a paradigm (131). The paradigm Homer uses is that going to church is a waste of time. He claims that he is a good person so he shouldn't have to spend time hearing otherwise. He backs up this claim with the examples that he loves his kids and works very hard. For the examples used to prove your paradigm you can use facts, comparisons, or stories.
Paradigm seems like a useful tool of rhetoric, but hardly worth an entire blog post. Yet here it is. Now, back to the election.
So Homer's "I'm not a bad guy! I work hard, and I love my kids. So why should I spend half my Sunday hearing about how I'm going to hell?" uses a paradigm (131). The paradigm Homer uses is that going to church is a waste of time. He claims that he is a good person so he shouldn't have to spend time hearing otherwise. He backs up this claim with the examples that he loves his kids and works very hard. For the examples used to prove your paradigm you can use facts, comparisons, or stories.
Paradigm seems like a useful tool of rhetoric, but hardly worth an entire blog post. Yet here it is. Now, back to the election.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
More Vocab
Oops, two vocab posts in a row. Not my fault, I didn't know. Anyhow here are lots of exciting big words from chapters 11 and 12 that also happen to be important in understanding what Heinrichs is saying.
Advantageous: Basing the argument on what's good for the audience, not you.
Commonplace: Any cliche, belief, or value that can serve as the audience's public opinion.
Babbling: When your audience repeats the same thing over and over, a commonplace.
Definition: A statement of the exact meaning of a word, phrase, or situation.
Stance: Attitude toward something or starting off point.
Redefinition: Accepting your opponents terms while changing their connotation.
Term Changing: Not accepting the terms your opponent uses but rather inserting your own.
Definition Jujitsu: Use your opponents terms to attack if they favor you.
Definition Judo: Use terms that contrast your opponent's, create a context that makes them look bad.
Framing: Same as defining; define the issue in broad context and then deal with the specific problem using the future tense.
There are lots of entertaining videos about AP English on youtube, however none of them are concerning these exact terms and rhetoric devices.
Advantageous: Basing the argument on what's good for the audience, not you.
Commonplace: Any cliche, belief, or value that can serve as the audience's public opinion.
Babbling: When your audience repeats the same thing over and over, a commonplace.
Definition: A statement of the exact meaning of a word, phrase, or situation.
Stance: Attitude toward something or starting off point.
Redefinition: Accepting your opponents terms while changing their connotation.
Term Changing: Not accepting the terms your opponent uses but rather inserting your own.
Definition Jujitsu: Use your opponents terms to attack if they favor you.
Definition Judo: Use terms that contrast your opponent's, create a context that makes them look bad.
Framing: Same as defining; define the issue in broad context and then deal with the specific problem using the future tense.
There are lots of entertaining videos about AP English on youtube, however none of them are concerning these exact terms and rhetoric devices.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)