批判性思维 (7).pdf

《批判性思维 (7).pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《批判性思维 (7).pdf（26页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、Recently,we ve watched the country s leaders and lawmakers slog through some pretty heavy rhetoric as they dealt with health care reform,reform of the fi nancial system,and the midterm elections of federal and state officials.We ve also heard some pretty good arguments and seen some pretty good evid

2、encemainly in the form of studies we believe were done in a professional manner by trustworthy peoplethat such reforms are needed.But determining which information is“good”something we,of course,must do to participate successfully in a democ-racycan be difficult amidst the clatter and bang of warrin

3、g political parties,adversarial media personalities,rantings(and sometimes unreliable information)from the blogo-sphere,and shouting in the streets.In fact,the emotional tone of public discussion and debate has lately reached lev-els we haven t seen since the 1960s,and the rhetoric often seems more

4、gratuitously misleading now than it did in those days.(It may be that your authors were simply too young to recognize it back then,of course.Ahem.)As it becomes more difficult to fi nd serious discussions of important issues,it gets easier and easier to fi nd examples of rhetorical devices designed

5、to provoke emotional,knee-jerk reactions.Unfortunately(for us as individuals as well as for public policy),it can be altogether too easy to allow Students will learn to.1.Recognize and name fallacies that appeal directly to emotion2.Recognize and name fallacies that appeal to psychological elements

6、other than emotion 6 More Rhetorical Devices Psychological and Related Fallacies 184 moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 184moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 18412/9/10 1:34 PM12/9/10 1:34 PM FALLACIES THAT INVOLVE APPEALS TO EMOTION 185emotional responses to take the place of sound judgment and careful think-ing.I

7、n this chapter,we ll target some specifi c devices designed to prompt ill-considered reactions rather than sound judgmentdevices that go beyond the rhetorical coloration we talked about in the last chapter.The stratagems we ll discuss sometimes masquerade as arguments,complete with premises and conc

8、lusions and language that would suggest argumentation.But while they may be made to look or sound like arguments,they don t provide legitimate grounds for accepting a conclusion.In place of good reasons for a conclusion,most of the schemes we ll look at in this chapter offer us considerations that a

9、re emotionally or psychologically linked to the issue in question.The support they may appear to offer is only pretended support;you might think of them as pieces of pretend reasoning,or pseudoreasoning.The devices in this chapter thus all count as fallacies(a fallacy is a mis-take in reasoning).The

10、 rhetorical devices we discussed in the last chaptereuphemisms,innuendo,and so fortharen t fallacies.Of course,we commit a fallacy if we think a claim has been supported when the“support”is nothing more than rhetorically persuasive language.People constantly accept fallacies as legitimate arguments;

11、but the reverse mistake can also happen.We must be careful not to dismiss legitimate arguments as fallacies just because they remind us of a fallacy.Often,begin-ning students in logic have this problem.They read about fallacies like the ones we cover here and then think they see them everywhere.Thes

12、e fallacies are common,but they are not everywhere;and you sometimes must consider a specimen carefully before accepting or rejecting it.The exercises we ll sup-ply will help you learn to do this,because they contain a few reasonable argu-ments mixed in with the fallacies.All the fallacies in this c

13、hapter have in common the fact that what pre-tends to be a premise is actually irrelevant to the conclusion.That is,even if the premise is true,it does not provide any reason for believing that the con-clusion is true.FALLACIES THAT INVOLVE APPEALS TO EMOTION One can arrange fallacies into groups in

14、 a number of ways:fallacies of rel-evance,of ambiguity,of presumption,of distraction,and so on.We ve chosen in this chapter to talk fi rst about fallacies that involve appeals to emotion,fol-lowed by fallacies that depend in part on psychological impact but that do not appeal directly to one emotion

15、 or another.Incidentally,we don t want to give the idea that all appeals to emotion are fallacious,misleading,or bad in some other way.Often we accomplish our greatest good works as a result of such appeals.One burden of the next section is to help you distinguish between relevant and irrelevant cal

16、ls on our emotions.The Argument from Outrage A while back,an article in the Washington Post by Ceci Connolly summa-rized a New England Journal of Medicine report that gave credit to new med-ical technology for lowered battlefi eld death rates in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Many fewer casualties

17、 were dying than had ever been the case in wartime before.The most widely heard radio talk show host in America,moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 185moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 18512/9/10 1:34 PM12/9/10 1:34 PM186 CHAPTER 6:MORE RHETORICAL DEVICESRush Limbaugh,made use of this report to express his outrage

18、at liberal critics of the war.They re just lividthe press,the leftists in this countryare just upset there are not enough deaths to get people outraged and protesting in the streets against the war.They re mad these doc-tors are saving lives.They want deaths!H is voice was tense with disbelief and i

19、ndignation that“the Left”wanted more soldiers to die.*This technique of expressing out-rageanybody who doesn t see this point must be a fool or a trai-tor!is one we ve identifi ed with Limbaugh because he was one of the early masters of the method;we ve even considered refer-ring to the use of outra

20、ge to persuade people as“the Limbaugh fallacy.”But the technique is not unique to Limbaugh,of course;it s typical of today s hard-line talk show people.And apparently it works,if the people who call in to the programs are any indi-cation,since they tend to be as outraged at the goings-on as the host

21、s of the programs.That s the idea,of course.If a person gets angry enough about something,if one is in the throes of righteous indignation,then it s all too easy to throw reason and good sense out the win-dow and accept whatever alternative is being offered by the speaker just from indignation alone

22、.Now,does this mean that we never have a right to be angry?Of course not.Anger is not a fallacy,and there are times when it s entirely appropriate.However,when we are angryand the angrier or more outraged we are,the more true this becomesit s easy to become illogical,and it can happen in two ways.Fi

23、rst,we may think we have been given a reason for being angry when in fact we have not.It is a mistake to think that something is wrong just because it makes somebody angry,even if it s us whom it seems to anger.It s easy to mistake a feeling of outrage for evidence of something,but it isn t evidence

24、 of anything,really,except our anger.Second,we may let the anger we feel as the result of one thing influence our evaluations of an unrelated thing.If we re angry over what we take to be the motives of somebody s detractors,we must remember that their motives are a separate matter from whether their

25、 criticisms are accurate;they might still be right.Similarly,if a person does something that makes us mad,that doesn t provide us a reason for downgrading him on some other matter,nor would it be a reason for upgrading our opinion of someone else.The argument from outrage,*then,consists of infl amma

26、tory words(or thoughts)followed by a“conclusion”of some sort.It substitutes anger for reason and judgment in considering an issue.It is a favorite strategy of dema-*We should say that our own investigation could not turn up anyone,from the Left or anywhere else,who wanted more Americans to die.We di

27、d find,however,that one result of the new technology was a much higher number of soldiers who were returning alive but seriously wounded,including great numbers of amputees.(The 6 percent amputee rate for wounded soldiers is about double that of previous wars,due primarily to the widespread use of r

28、oadside bombs.)*Although we use the phrase“argument from outrage”here,we should make it clear that evoking a persons sense of outrage does not count as making an argument,although as indicated,this emotional appeal is very often a substitute for an argument.moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 186moo38286_ch0

29、6_184-209.indd 18612/9/10 1:34 PM12/9/10 1:34 PM FALLACIES THAT INVOLVE APPEALS TO EMOTION187gogues.In fact,it is the favorite strategy of demagogues.Let s say the issue is whether gay marriages should be legal.Left-of-center demagogues may wax indignantly about“narrow-minded fundamentalist bigots d

30、ictating what peo-ple can do in their bedrooms”talk calculated to get us steamed although it really has nothing to do with the issue.On the other side,conservative dema-gogues may allude to gays demanding“special rights.”Nobody wants some-one else to get special rights,and when we hear about somebod

31、y“demanding”them,our blood pressure goes up.But wanting a right other people have is not wanting a special right;it s wanting an equal right.A particularly dangerous type of“argument”from outrage is known as scapegoating blaming a certain group of people,or even a single person(like George W.Bush or

32、 Barack Obama),for all of life s troubles.George Wallace,the former governor of Alabama who ran for president in 1968 on a“states rights platform”(which then was a code word for white supremacy)said he could get good old Southern boys to do anything by“whupping”them into a frenzy over Northern civil

33、 rights workers.“Arguments”based on outrage are so common that the fallacy ranks high on our list of the top ten fallacies of all time,which can be found inside the front cover.It s unfortunate they are so commonhistory demonstrates constantly that anger is a poor lens through which to view the worl

34、d.Policies adopted in The idea behind talk radio is to keep the base riled up.Republican political advisor BRENT LAUDER,explaining what talk radio is for.In the MediaWishful ThinkingFashion magazines are chock full of ads that are designed to associate a product with beautiful images(as discussed in

35、 Chapter 4).But even if using a product might make you smell like the guy in the photo,it isnt likely to change anything elseto believe otherwise is to engage in wishful thinking,discussed later in this chapter.moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 187moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 18712/9/10 1:34 PM12/9/10 1:34 P

36、M188 CHAPTER 6:MORE RHETORICAL DEVICESanger are seldom wise,as any parent will tell you who has laid down the law in a fi t of anger.Scare Tactics George Wallace didn t just try to anger the crowds when he told them what Northern civil rights workers were up to;he tried to scare them.When people bec

37、ome angry or afraid,they don t think clearly.They follow blindly.Dema-gogues like Wallace like to dangle scary scenarios in front of people.Trying to scare people into doing something or accepting a position is using scare tactics.One way this might be done is the George Wallace methoddangling a fri

38、ghtening picture in front of someone.A simpler method might be to threaten the person,a special case of scare tactics known as argument by force.Either way,if the idea is to get people to substitute fear for reason and judgment when taking a position on an issue,it is a fallacy.Likewise,it is a fall

39、acy to succumb to such techniques when others use them on us.(This does not mean you shouldn t give up your wallet to the guy with the gun aimed at your head.See the box“Prudential Grounds Versus Rational Grounds,”above.)Real LifePrudential Grounds Versus Rational GroundsA scary or threatening situa

40、tion can provide us with a prudential reason for acting on a claim,even though,outside the immediate circumstances,we would not accept it.For example,a person or organization might agree to pay a settlement to a person who claims his back was injured on their property,even though they believe,with g

41、ood reason,that he is faking the injury.The fear of losing an even bigger sum in court provides prudential grounds for paying,even though they would never accept the claim that they should pay except for the threatening circumstances.moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 188moo38286_ch06_184-209.indd 18812/9/1

42、0 1:34 PM12/9/10 1:34 PM FALLACIES THAT INVOLVE APPEALS TO EMOTION 189 Fear can befuddle us as easily as can anger,and the mistakes that happen are similar in both instances.Wallace s listeners may not have noticed(or may not have cared)that Wallace didn t actually give them evidence that civil righ

43、ts workers were doing whatever it was he portrayed them as doing;the portrayal was its own evidence,you might say.When we are befuddled with fear,we may not notice we lack evidence that the scary scenario is real.Imagine someone talking about global warming:The speaker may paint a picture so alarmin

44、g we don t notice that he or she doesn t provide evidence that global warming is actually happening.Or take gay marriages again.Someone might warn us of presumably dire consequences if gay people are allowed to marrywe ll be opening“Pandora s box”;marriage will become meaningless;homosexuality will

45、become rampant;society will collapsebut he or she may issue these warnings without providing details as to why(or how)the consequences might actually come about.The consequences are so frightening they apparently don t need proof.Fear of one thing,X,may also affect evaluation of an unrelated thing,Y

46、.You have your eye on a nice house and are considering buying it,and then the real estate agent frightens you by telling you the seller has received other offers and will sell soon.Some people in this situation might overestimate what they really can afford to pay.To avoid translating fear of one th

47、ing into an evaluation of some un related thing,we need to be clear on what issues our fears are relevant to.Legitimate warnings do not involve irrelevancies and do not qualify as scare tactics.“You should be careful of that snakeit s deadly poisonous”might be a scary thing to say to someone,but we

48、don t make a mistake in reasoning when we say it,and neither does the other person if he or she turns and runs into the house.Suppose,however,that the Michelin tire people show an ad featuring a sweet(and vulnerable)baby in a ring of automobile tires.Showing pictures of car tires around infants will

49、 produce disquieting associations in any observer,and it wouldn t be unreasonable to check our tires when we see this ad.But the issue raised by the Michelin people is whether to buy Michelin tires,and the fear of injuring or killing a child by driving on unsafe tires does not bear on the question o

50、f which tires to buy.The Michelin ad isn t a legitimate warn-ing;it s scare tactics.Other Fallacies Based on Emotions Other emotions work much like anger and fear as sources of mistakes in rea-soning.Compassion,for example,is a fi ne thing to have.There is absolutely nothing wrong with feeling sorry