Logical fallacies are prevalent in the arena of politics. This might be expected, as political discourse involves plenty of argumentation, and one of the key persuasive factors of arguments is that they adhere to logic. One way to locate logical fallacies in today’s political discourse is to peruse hot-button issues in the news and read opinion editorials and reputable blogs that engage the issues in argument.
Here are two examples of fallacious reasoning ("cherry-picking" and "straw man" fallacies, respectively) that have recently emerged:
1. From an April 29th The Stranger article reporting on the Washington state legislature’s vote on April 26th to get rid of the state’s ban on affirmative action (in other words, affirmative action will now be allowed in the state):
Sen. Keith Wagoner (R-Sedro Woolley)…argued that the very presence of Sen. Joe Nguyen in Senate chambers was an argument against the bill. "He's proof that our system lets people move up," Wagoner said.
I knew that was going to happen," said Sen. Nguyen over the phone after the vote. "I knew they were going to use me as an example for why we don't need this."
Senator Wagoner’s argument here is an example of a fallacy that is sometimes called the “anecdotal fallacy,” or the “cherry-picking fallacy.” Both of these fallacies refer to the logical error of presenting a single piece, or a small batch, of evidence as support for a conclusion, when a much broader swathe of evidence is necessary.
In this example, Senator Wagoner cites the anecdotal fact that Senator Nguyen, who has Vietnamese heritage, has risen to the level of a state senator as an argument against the need for affirmative action. At first glance, it makes sense that Senator Wagoner points to the success of a person who identifies as a minority because affirmative action involves businesses, schools, and other institutions taking race, ethnicity, sex, and other factors into consideration as they admit, hire, sponsor, et cetera. But, in order to argue reasonably about affirmative action, which affects people across the state, Senator Wagoner would need to refer to statistics that represent a large set of people, not just one person.
Senator Nguyen later explained how his opponent’s reasoning fell short: "Just because one person gets through doesn't mean everyone has an equal opportunity to get through. We have barriers. They're systemic."
2. From an April 29th Politifact article dissecting a claim in a speech given by President Trump at a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin on April 27th:
[Trump said that] with a late-term abortion, "the mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby."
Trump made this claim as an argument for a bill that includes criminal punishments for doctors who do not “preserve the life” of babies who are born alive despite a late-term abortion attempt. Trump characterizes the medical procedure as "execution." Yet, taking into account scientific facts and descriptions by doctors, the Politifact article points out that the circumstance treated by the bill would accurately be described as a decision "not to resuscitate"—a decision made by a mother and a medical team taking into consideration the survival outlook of the baby—and not a decision “to execute.” By mischaracterizing his opponent’s view, Trump commits a “straw man” fallacy. This is an error in reasoning where the speaker sets out to refute an argument that hasn’t actually been presented by the opponent.
We could also say Trump resorts to the fallacy of “emotional appeal.” The context of this example is an emotionally charged subject. As we attempt to stand outside of it and consider Trump’s argument objectively, we can see how his word choice exploits the emotional value of the subject. Now, appeals to emotion are often used effectively in persuasive texts—for example, in political speeches. Yet, in the context of logical argumentation, the attempt to persuade an audience by eliciting emotional reactions like anger, fear or disgust in place of presenting a logical sequence of reasoning would be considered fallacious. By ignoring the many essential facts around a complicated medical situation—and instead using the terminology of killing—Trump aims to elicit an emotional rather than a rational response from his audience.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/apr/29/donald-trump/donald-trump-repeats-falsely-doctors-mothers-decid/
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/04/29/40049619/after-20-years-washington-repeals-its-ban-on-affirmative-action
No comments:
Post a Comment