Persuasive arguments

[moderateamericain]

Hi all, just dropping in for an evening of Mapleleafweb.com! I know i dont post much lately, my duties keep me tied down lately, but i have most definetly been paying attention to whats going on here. I was reading a book on Critical thinking the other day, and one chapter in particular really brought to my attention some major flaw in arguments that i see time and time again here. Anyways i though id share some ideas.

The first flawed argument i see alot of is the Ad Hominem. An ad Hominem fallacy is litteraly an attack on the souce of the argument. For example, If a long standing argument attributed to Socrates was discovered to actually have been given by Socrates sandlemaker, would it make the argument less powerful or valid? A commandment that we should all live by is When considering the quality of an argument, thou shalt not consider the source of the argument An argument stands or falls by its own merit

The second flaw in argument i see a great deal is appeal to authority most of us just find someone who appears credible and assume its correct. Take for example, the theory's on the collapse of the twin towers, lets say 1000 civil engineers/demo experts say the plane crash couldnt have caused the collapse that way but 5000 say it collapsed as it should have. which is right? the fallacy here is we have a preset bias and we buy into whatever we WANT to here. While experts are persuasive in arguments you have to be careful your bias doesnt get in the way. two questions you have to ask, Is the source of the testimony trustworthy? and is the source really knowledgeable about the topic in question?

The third large one and its almost always a fallacy to use appeal to ignorance in other words because we dont know whether or not its false, it must be true. Think tabloids, Angelina Jolie is pregenant by an alien, she hasnt denied it so it must be true. Alot of you thruthies abuse the hell out of this, however not to pick on just you i see it from other arenas as well.

For the record, Im just as guilty of some of these as some of you, and i dont claim to be perfect, however if some of you heed these a little closer we will have far more substance and far less post i have to skim through for a valid argument.

Thanks a bunch!

[geoffrey]

The first flawed argument i see alot of is the Ad Hominem. An ad Hominem fallacy is litteraly an attack on the souce of the argument. For example, If a long standing argument attributed to Socrates was discovered to actually have been given by Socrates sandlemaker, would it make the argument less powerful or valid? A commandment that we should all live by is When considering the quality of an argument, thou shalt not consider the source of the argument An argument stands or falls by its own merit.

An arguments evidence is open to criticism on a professional level. If an economist says he has found evidence that global warming is happening, I am in the argumentative right to point out he's not a qualified voice on that evidence.

If the evidence is assumed fact (dangerous in itself), then yes, anyone that uses it correctly to support their argument should do so and only have their argument questioned. But when coming up with original evidence, qualifications are essiential and subject to criticism.

[moderateamericain]

The first flawed argument i see alot of is the Ad Hominem. An ad Hominem fallacy is litteraly an attack on the souce of the argument. For example, If a long standing argument attributed to Socrates was discovered to actually have been given by Socrates sandlemaker, would it make the argument less powerful or valid? A commandment that we should all live by is When considering the quality of an argument, thou shalt not consider the source of the argument An argument stands or falls by its own merit.

An arguments evidence is open to criticism on a professional level. If an economist says he has found evidence that global warming is happening, I am in the argumentative right to point out he's not a qualified voice on that evidence.

If the evidence is assumed fact (dangerous in itself), then yes, anyone that uses it correctly to support their argument should do so and only have their argument questioned. But when coming up with original evidence, qualifications are essiential and subject to criticism.

Good points, i agree. Ad hominem arguments can be both a valid statment and a fallacy, thanks for making that point. In my opinion, i think the other 2 are far more likely be presented in a false way then ad hominem.

Good post!