Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill [134]
The fact that metaphors require interpretation—as do most uses of language— does not take away from the fact that metaphors are a way of thinking. Being able to articulate the implicit arguments embodied in metaphors, making their meanings explicit so that they can be opened to discussion with others—is an important thinking and language skill to acquire.
A BRIEF GLOSSARY OF COMMON LOGICAL FALLACIES
This last section of the chapter offers a brief discussion of common fallacies—false moves—that can subvert argument and interpretation. If you can recognize these fallacies, you can more easily avoid them both in constructing arguments and in analyzing the arguments of others.
The logical fallacies share certain characteristics. First of all, they are forms of cheating in an argument, which is to say that, however false and misleading they may be, and however intentional or unintentional, these tactics are often quite successful. They offer cheap and unethical ways of “winning” an argument—usually at the cost of shutting down the possibility of negotiation among competing views and discovery of common ground that are the goals of Rogerian argument.
The most noticeable feature of arguments based on the logical fallacies is sloganizing— or slogan-slinging, which is a suitably graphic way of putting it. In sloganizing, each side tries to lay claim to various of a culture’s honorific words, which then are repeated so often and so much out of context that they evoke little more than a warm glow that each side hopes to attach to its cause. Words and phrases often used in this way are “liberty,” “freedom,” “the individual,” and “the American people,” to name a few.
Words like these are sometimes referred to as “weasel” words, along with words like “natural” and “real.” The analogy with weasels goes to the notion that weasels suck out the contents of eggs, leaving empty shells behind.
The sloganizing move gets made when each side tries to attach to the other side various labels that evoke fear, even though the words have been repeated so often, in reference to so many different things, that they have become virtually meaningless. This type of sloganizing almost always takes complex circumstances and reduces them to clear-cut goods and evils. Prominent examples in the current contentious political environment are “socialist,” “big government,” and “capitalist.”
It is usual to organize the fallacies into the categories Pathos, Ethos, and Logos from classical rhetoric (see Chapter 3, the section on Analysis and Argument). Appeals to the audience’s emotions, for example, such as the fallacy called “bandwagon,” fall under pathos. Attacks on the character of one’s opponent, such as the fallacy called ad hominem, are located under ethos. Various kinds of deceptive and erroneous thinking, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc, come under Logos.
Here is another useful way to think about the fallacies. The categories overlap somewhat, but it is helpful to differentiate diversionary tactics from moves that misrepresent the issues.
Fallacies that derail an argument by distracting audience attention to a mostly irrelevant topic (e.g., red herring, ad hominem)
Fallacies that oversimplify and polarize positions, often through the use of slogans or scare words (e.g., slippery slope, equivocation, false dichotomies, false analogies, straw man).
Some of the fallacies in this second category appear to make a show of substantiality and logicality, while actively misrepresenting things (e.g., simple cause/complex effect, confusing a correlation with a cause—especially when statistics are involved).
Recognizing fallacies in other people’s arguments all too often leads to games of “gotcha.” Pointing out others’ dubious moves can