Irrational Techniques of Persuasion Chapter 14 Irrational Techniques of Persuasion

Irrational Techniques of Persuasion There are several techniques employed that may be persuasive in getting someone to accept the conclusion of an argument, but are often irrationally employed. They are irrational because one accepts the conclusion not because of reasons, but for some other reason (e.g., emotion).

Loaded Terms Loaded terms are terms which contain both a descriptive and evaluative meaning (we saw the difference between these types of uses of language in Ch. 2). Sometimes these words can be used to “smuggle” in an evaluation, when it appears, on the surface, that someone or something is being described.

Loaded Terms E.g. “terrorist” “freedom fighter” Is Osama bib Laden a terrorist? Freedom fighter? Michael Collins? Che Guevara?

Vague Terms Remember the distinction between ambiguity and vagueness (Ch. 2). Ambiguous terms are those that have two or more possible interpretations, and it is not clear which one is intended. Vague terms are those which are imprecise, but the intended meaning is clear.

Vague Terms The use of ambiguous terms is always fallacious. The use of vague terms is only fallacious when precision is called for (sometimes it is not). In particular, the use of vague terms is fallacious when it is used to persuade you of something that is false.

Vague Terms The use of vague terms is particularly evident in advertising. In particular, this is evident in the use of metaphorical words or phrases.

Loaded Questions Although arguments are composed of statements (sentences which are capable of being true or false), questions are sometimes used when arguing with another person. The answers to these questions (which themselves are statements) can then be used as premises.

Loaded Questions There are certain questions that one ought to be aware of: complex questions. A complex question contains an assumption that any answer to the question will confirm. The classis example is: “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

Loaded Questions No matter how you answer a complex question, you tacitly concede the assumption. (i.e., you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t) In order to respond to complex questions, you can either Refuse to answer the question Ask that the question be rephrased without the assumption

Loaded Questions Accusations can also be turned into questions. Instead of accusing someone of, e.g., of plagiarizing, you can ask “Did you plagiarize?” These accusative questions are particularly effective when the question is asked publicly.

False Confidence Presenting a claim with confidence is a way in which someone may be convinced of the truth of that claim even if the evidence (or premises) do not support it with the same amount of confidence. If a claim is presented confidently, then it may not be called into question by one’s opponent.

False Confidence False confidence differs from a lie in that the person putting forward the claim believes it. Liars don’t believe what they say. A person who is falsely confident believes the claim, but is lying about the confidence one should have in the evidence that would reasonably lead one to believe that claim.

False Confidence E.g. Mongolian peasants use a method of predicting the sex of unborn children that is accurate more than 95 per cent of the time. On a night when there is a full moon, the father spits into a cup of the mother’s urine and leaves it on the doorstep of their hut overnight. If the spit is still floating the next morning, the baby will be a boy.

Selectivity Selectivity occurs when information that detracts from your conclusion is omitted from the argument. In these cases, no lies are told, as the failure to include evidence contrary to your view is not a lie. Nevertheless, deceit occurs here.

Selectivity This sort of deceit can be used quite effectively with inductive arguments. Induction by confirmation can succumb to this fallacy quite easily.

Red Herring To introduce a red herring is to attempt to shift criticism from our own argument to another topic that distracts from the original criticism. P. 293 (text)

Guilt By Association This argument is an analogical argument. It suggests a similarity between the opponent (subject) and another group (analogue), and infers that because the analogue group has a particular feature, the subject must have that feature as well. This is regarded as an irrational method because there is usually almost no (relevant) similarity between the two cases.

Guilt By Association E.g., p. 295

Self-Test No. 21 p. 296