Fallacy in Everyday Media - Assignment Example

Fallacy in Everyday Media Everyday, most people, especially politicians, judges, teachers, economists, commentators, etc. make an argument or assertion. And what makes one right is the correctness of his or her argument. And of course, correctness is determined by the factuality of ones premises. Unfortunately, however, this is not always the case, especially if one feels strongly about the issue of a debate or discussion causing him or her to slip up easily thereby, committing fallacy (“Fallacies,” sec. 2, par. 2). Although fallacy is oftentimes mistakenly understood synonymous with factual error, generally, they are two different concepts. The former is an error in reasoning, while the latter is simply an erroneous fact. Specifically, “a fallacy is an ‘argument’ in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support” (Labossiere, sec. 1, par. 3) making it invalid or incorrect. There are varied forms of fallacy, which people commit everyday. Three commonly abused fallacies observed in everyday media are discussed below. A news story by Magnus Linklater of The Times entitled “The age of personal vitriolic abuse” shows vividly how politicians use the fallacy of Ad Hominem against political adversary. As in the case of Gordon Brown’s rivalry with Tony Blair over premiership of Britain Linklater reported: Mr. Brown is now the object of what can only be described as a feeding frenzy that goes well beyond criticism of his political indecision, the handling of the Northern Rock affair and the errors he admits to, such as the 10p tax fiasco. It is fuelled too by party infighting and the paying off of ancient scores; given the long- running rivalry between him and Tony Blair… the resulting bitterness should not surprise us. But none of that quite explains the personal vitriol. Here is one sentence, culled from a recent national newspaper leader… : They [British voters] know their Premier to be a neurotic, dysfunctional mediocrity; an insecure Stalinist who worships power but cannot take a decision; a moral and political coward who tries to fill the vacuum at the heart of his leadership with blustering rhetoric and adolescent bullying. (Daily Express as qtd. in par. 3-4) Such kind of argument is a classic example of the fallacy of Ad Hominem, because the detractors of Brown did not only criticize his political failures but instead attack his character in order to demerit his stand or his policies (“Fallacy: Ad Hominem,” par. 1-3). As Linklater reported: “… the barely concealed suggestions that Mr. Brown is psychologically flawed, even autistic, possibly mad, that he cannot communicate, is hopelessly insecure, an inept loner incapable of running his own life let alone that of the nation…” (par. 5) is a personal attack to Mr. Brown, which intends to discredit him extending to not only his positions and policies, but once succeeds even his premiership. Ad Hominem fallacy in short is character assassination – a very cheap and irresponsible way of argumentation, because instead of looking at the merit of the argument, you instead divert the issue by personally discrediting the other person. In effect, you are not resolving the issue, therefore missing the point of argumentation. In the CNN’s Interview with Osama bin Laden by Peter Arnett on March 1997, we can observe another example of fallacy being used, which as quoted: Now, the United States government says that you are still funding military training camps here in Afghanistan for militant, Islamic fighters and that you are a sponsor of international terrorism; but others describe you as the new hero of the Arab-Islamic world. Are these accusations true? How do you describe yourself? BIN LADEN: After the collapse of the Soviet Union in which the US has no mentionable role, but rather the credit goes to God. Praise and Glory be to Him, and the Mujahidin in Afghanistan, this collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant and it has started to look at itself as a Master of this world and established what is calls the new world order. It wanted to delude people that it can do whatever it wants, but it can’t do this. It leveled against me and others as many accusations as it desired and wished… At the time that they condemn any Muslim who calls for his right, they receive the highest top official of the Irish Republican Army… at the White House as a political leader, while woe, all woe is the Muslims if they cry out for their rights. Wherever we look, we find the US as the leader of terrorism and crime in the world. The US does not consider it a terrorist act to throw atomic bombs at nations thousands of miles away, when it would not be possible for those bombs to hit military troops only. These bombs were rather thrown at entire nations, including women, children and elderly people and up to this day the traces of those bombs remain in Japan. The US does not consider it terrorism when hundreds of thousands of our sons and brothers in Iraq died for lack of food and medicine. So, there is no base for what the US says and this saying does not affect us, because we by the grace of God are dependent on Him. (4) Bin Laden’s manner of answering Arnett’s “conjunctive questions, that is two questions in one… ‘Are these accusations true?’ (Engel 204-206 qtd. in “Tu Quoque,” sec. 7, par. 3) referring back to the two accusations stated above perfectly illustrates the fallacy of “Tu Quoque,” because just like what Bin Laden did, instead of answering the question, the accusation is turned against the accuser in order to defend Al Qaedda’s actions. In short, “this argumentative move works by showing that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it” (Baggini, par. 4), implying that what he does is in fact done by the accuser before him, and therefore invalidates the accusation. It is a diversionary tactic because instead of putting one’s self into explaining one’s action, the individual instead brings the attention to the accuser, thus putting the accuser into a defensive position. Likewise, “this is an irrelevancy designed to distract the audience from the question at issue, that is, it is a Red Herring. Even if all of Bin Laden's accusations are true, they have nothing to do with the question, and thus are irrelevant” (sec. 3, par. 1). And as what we can see, the question is in fact not answered. Also, Jean H. Lee’s report in Time regarding North Korea’s trial of US reporters demonstrates the fallacy of the Appeal to Fear “also known as Scare Tactics, Appeal to Force, or Ad Baculum” (“Fallacy: Appeal to Fear,” par. 1). The report goes: North Korea’s top court began hearing the case Thursday of two American journalists accused of crossing into the country illegally and engaging in ‘hostile acts’ – charges that could draw a 10-year sentence in a labor camp… Analyst Choi Eun-suk, a professor of North Korean Law at Kyungnam University, said the court could convict the women and then the government could use them as bargaining chips in negotiations with the US… The North is likely to release and deport them to the U.S. – if negotiations with the U.S. go well. (par. 1, 7, 8) In this report, North Korea obviously utilizes the Appeal to Fear in order to impose its demand on the U.S., which hegemonic power has long been detested. This line of reasoning seemingly sounds justifiable, yet understanding the characteristics of argumentation, this is fallacious because “creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim” (Opcit, par.3). For example, in this case, North Korea accused the two reporters of US espionage that once proven guilty could mean five to ten years in a labor camp. Yet, instead of focusing on the evidences to prove them guilty, the North Korean government instead set the negotiation by instilling fear of the labor camp on the Americans. Instead of acting in a way that “the seriousness of the punishment should match the seriousness of the crime” (“Fallacies,” sec. 6, par.2), the possible release now of the two American journalists no longer depends on the evidences of their alleged crime, but on the possible concessions that the US government could accede to North Korea. And to force the U.S. government to their demand, they instill fear to the Americans and the international community. The three fallacies discussed above all miss the point of argumentation – that is to resolve a disagreement. The fallacies of Ad Hominem, Tu Quoque and Ad Baculum as illustrated in the given examples, intentionally evade to head on the issue, thus instead of resolving whatever is being debated upon, it creates another problem. With these, we can therefore say that using fallacy in argumentation is missing the point, rendering the argument irrelevant. “By definition, arguments with logical fallacies are invalid. (Thus), the challenge to the interlocutor is … to discover the false premise… the premise that makes the argument unsound” (“Fallacy,” sec. 2, subsec. 3, par. 5). Works Cited Arnett, Peter. “CNN March 1997 Interview with Osama bin Laden.” Find Law. March 1997 Findlaw. 5 June 2009 Baggini, Julian. “Bad Moves: Tu Quoque.” Butterflies and Wheels. Butterfliesandwheels.com 5 June 2009 “Fallacies.” Handouts and Links. The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 1998-2007. unc.edu. 5 June 2009 Read More