Rhetoric, Rationalization, and Bad Argument Strategies Informal Fallacies and Non-arguments

Argument from Outrage When anger functions as a premise  May use selective presentation to attempt to create, increase, or confirm feelings of anger

Argument from Outrage When anger functions as a premise  May use selective presentation to attempt to create, increase, or confirm feelings of anger  May attempt to justify letting anger over one thing influence judgment about another, unrelated thing

Argument from Outrage When anger functions as a premise  May use selective presentation to attempt to create, increase, or confirm feelings of anger  May attempt to justify letting anger over one thing influence judgment about another, unrelated thing  May simplistically attempt to focus anger on an easy target (scapegoating) Dennis Miller on war with Iraq: “After 9/11, we had to do something!”

Scare Tactics/Argument by Force When fear functions as a premise  May use selective presentation to attempt to create, increase, or confirm feelings of fear

Scare Tactics/Argument by Force When fear functions as a premise  May use selective presentation to attempt to create, increase, or confirm feelings of fear  May attempt to justify letting fear of one thing influence judgment about another, unrelated thing

Scare Tactics/Argument by Force When fear functions as a premise  May use selective presentation to attempt to create, increase, or confirm feelings of fear  May attempt to justify letting fear of one thing influence judgment about another, unrelated thing  Depends on inappropriate beliefs about what is feared To consider: Stockholm (Hostage) Syndrome -- acceptance of captors’ beliefs by hostages

Argument from Pity When sympathy functions as a premise  Occurs often as self-deception

Argument from Pity When sympathy functions as a premise  Occurs often as self-deception  May make calculated demands on feelings of sympathy and compassion

Argument from Pity When sympathy functions as a premise  Occurs often as self-deception  May make calculated demands on feelings of sympathy and compassion  May result in assumption of inadequately justified obligations

Argument from Pity When sympathy functions as a premise  Occurs often as self-deception  May make calculated demands on feelings of sympathy and compassion  May result in assumption of inadequately justified obligations  Can be mitigated by competent moral reasoning

Argument from Envy When jealousy motivates premises  Selection of premises may be influenced by irrelevant feelings  Unstated (assumed) premises are likely  Likely to occur as interior rationalization Apple Polishing When flattery motivates premises

Wishful Thinking When hope or desire motivates premises  Fallacy includes as a premise the belief that thinking or wishing will change probability

Wishful Thinking When hope or desire motivates premises  Fallacy includes as a premise the belief that thinking or wishing will change probability  Key “wishful thinking” premise may be an explicit metaphysical belief

Wishful Thinking When hope or desire motivates premises  Fallacy includes as a premise the belief that thinking or wishing will change probability  Key “wishful thinking” premise may be an explicit metaphysical belief  May occur as interior rationalization, explanation of faith, or “cheerleading”

Peer Pressure/Group Think When need for approval or belonging motivates premises  Claims accepted (function as true) because the group wants them accepted

Peer Pressure/Group Think When need for approval or belonging motivates premises  Claims accepted (function as true) because the group wants them accepted  Known fact: people may change beliefs or interpretations if they find themselves in the minority, even in a group of strangers

Peer Pressure/Group Think When need for approval or belonging motivates premises  Claims accepted (function as true) because the group wants them accepted  Known fact: people may change beliefs or interpretations if they find themselves in the minority, even in a group of strangers  As nationalism, may be actively used to discourage critical thinking

Rationalizing When inauthentic premises are substituted for true motives to justify a conclusion  Misdirects attention from potentially relevant facts or ideas

Rationalizing When inauthentic premises are substituted for true motives to justify a conclusion  Misdirects attention from potentially relevant facts or ideas  May constitute or result from self- deception

Rationalizing When inauthentic premises are substituted for true motives to justify a conclusion  Misdirects attention from potentially relevant facts or ideas  May constitute or result from self- deception  Substituted premises may also support unintended conclusions

Argument from Popularity/ Tradition/Common Practice When a widely-held belief that something is true or right is deemed sufficient support  Evidence supporting the belief or behavior is not accessible for evaluation

Argument from Popularity/ Tradition/Common Practice When a widely-held belief that something is true or right is deemed sufficient support  Evidence supporting the belief or behavior is not accessible for evaluation  Tends to gather strength with repetition

Argument from Popularity/ Tradition/Common Practice When a widely-held belief that something is true or right is deemed sufficient support  Evidence supporting the belief or behavior is not accessible for evaluation  Tends to gather strength with repetition  When group decisions have performative power--as in most votes--what the group thinks actually can make a proposition true or make behavior right or wrong

Relativism/Subjectivism When truth is reduced to perspective  Matters of fact and matters of opinion must be treated differently

Relativism/Subjectivism When truth is reduced to perspective  Matters of fact and matters of opinion must be treated differently  Legitimate differences in perception must be acknowledged

Relativism/Subjectivism When truth is reduced to perspective  Matters of fact and matters of opinion must be treated differently  Legitimate differences in perception must be acknowledged  Cultural variables and prerogatives must be identified

Relativism/Subjectivism When truth is reduced to perspective  Matters of fact and matters of opinion must be treated differently  Legitimate differences in perception must be acknowledged  Cultural variables and prerogatives must be identified  Moral and ethical values are obvious cases in which preferences are decisive

Two Wrongs Fallacy When wrong is taken for right  Begins with A harming B, or even being suspected of thinking harming B is OK

Two Wrongs Fallacy When wrong is taken for right  Begins with A harming B, or even being suspected of thinking harming B is OK  B decides to engage in wrongful behavior just because A did or might

Two Wrongs Fallacy When wrong is taken for right  Begins with A harming B, or even being suspected of thinking harming B is OK  B decides to engage in wrongful behavior just because A did or might  B’s decision is simply reactive, and not the outcome of reasoned inference

Red Herring/Smokescreen When irrelevancies obscure relevant ones  Both tend to introduce material that the audience will find attractive

Red Herring/Smokescreen When irrelevancies obscure relevant ones  Both tend to introduce material that the audience will find attractive  The red herring introduces distractions, especially ones that share significant features with the issue

Red Herring/Smokescreen When irrelevancies obscure relevant ones  Both tend to introduce material that the audience will find attractive  The red herring introduces distractions, especially ones that share significant features with the issue  The smokescreen introduces new topics and complications that obscure the issue