2). Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion (page 202) and Content Fallacies (page 201). Pick one, explain the fallacy in your own words, then give a real world example that you have heard in the past. (You may need to do additional 'research' for the fallacy that you have chosen if the concept is not clear from the text. You can 'google' the particular fallacy you have chosen for an additional explanation).
For this question, I am going to examine Content Fallacies. I didn’t find the book very clear on the distinction of Content Fallacies, but I will try my best. From what I can tell, content fallacies are arguments that are obviously bad. Usually, when analyzing an argument, one has to look and question each claim and determine if the argument is strong or weak. With content fallacies, it is easy to tell that the argument is very weak. For example, the book describes one content fallacy as being a “slippery slope”. When the argument is a slippery slope, it is easy to tell it is very weak. It is a fallacy because it is a long chain of things that supposedly lead to a conclusion; however, the claims have no explanation or reason behind them. For example, a slippery slope fallacy could be: “The government shouldn’t ban talking on cell phones while driving. Because then they will start banning everything we do.” The claim has no reason to make that conclusion. Therefore, it is a content fallacy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like your response to content fallacies, I agree that the book didn't really explain it really well. I was a little unclear as I was reading it. Your response made it a little more clear. It was definitely a tough topic to discuss but I think you did a pretty good job and made it easier to understand than the book. I think you explained what was in the book better than the book did itself. I also think your example was very easy to understand and it also helped me undrstand the concept. Overall, I think you did a very good job.
ReplyDelete