10/11/22

FALLACIES AS VIOLATIONS OF DISCUSSION RULES 1-5

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 04, 2022

TODAY, WE WILL. . .

¡ Go over our homework

¡ Define and illustrate fallacies as violations of the rules of a critical discussion.

1
 10/11/22

OVERVIEW

¡ Fallacies are errors in reasoning because they

Stages of a Critical Discussion
violate the rules for critical discussion.
¡ They prevent or hinder the resolution of a ¡ Confrontation Stage
difference of opinion on the merits. ¡ Opening Stage
¡ Argumentation Stage

¡ Concluding Stage

OVERVIEW

¡ There are ten rules enable a

resolution of a difference of 1. The Freedom Rule
opinion on the merits. 2. The Burden of Proof Rule
¡ Rules 1-5 pertain to how parties 3. The Standpoint Rule
should introduce their standpoints
and arguments in order to work 4. The Relevance Rule
constructively towards a resolution 5. The Unexpressed Premise Rule
of the difference of opinion.

2

RULE 1: THE FREEDOM RULE
1. The Freedom Rule: Parties must
not prevent each other from putting
forward standpoints or casting
doubt on standpoints.
¡ Violations of rule 1 occur at the
confrontation stage of a critical
discussion by protagonists and
antagonists
RULE 1: THE FREEDOM RULE
¡ Arguers can violate Rule 1 by placing
limits on possible standpoints or
doubts that can be raised.
¡ Sacrosanct topics are or not
open to discussion.
¡ Taboo topics are prohibited from
discussion.
10/11/22
Critical Discussion Stage
¡ Confrontation Stage
¡ Opening Stage
¡ Argumentation Stage
¡ Concluding Stage
¡ I’m going to have the kitchen
remodeled. We can discuss style and
layout or anything you want, but not
whether it will be done.
¡ I don’t think you should say that
Grandmother shouldn’t have
remarried. One should not speak ill of
the dead.
3
 10/11/22

RULE 1: THE FREEDOM RULE

¡ Arguers can also violate Rule 1 at the

confrontation stage by restricting the
other party’s freedom of action.
¡ Fallacy of the Stick (Argumentum
ad baculum) consists of the use of
threats to keep an opponent out of
the discussion.
¡ Most threats are implicitly
communicated or suggested.
¡ Note the reassuring statement
followed by by a disclaiming but
¡ “Naturally it is for you to know what
you will or won’t accept, but you must
realize that we are your biggest
advertiser.

RULE 1: THE FREEDOM RULE

¡ An Appeal to Pity (argumentum

ad misericordiam) is a form of
emotional blackmail because you
are to be held responsible for
hurting or disappointing the other
person if you question their
standpoint or reject their request.
¡ If I fail this class am going to fall out of
immigration status. . . [Let me finish
my assignments,] otherwise, I won’t
be able to come in the fall because I
will get deported.

4
 10/11/22

RULE 1: THE FREEDOM RULE

¡ Arguers can also restrict the other

party’s freedom of action by attacking
the other party’s person through ad
hominem attacks.
¡ Representative Baker's opinion on this
¡ There are three variants of the Ad
matter should not be heeded. After all,
hominem Fallacy:
he's a far left, tax-and-spend liberal
1. Direct Personal Attack is the
“abusive variant:” Doubt is
unreasonably cast their expertise,
integrity, or credibility.

10

RULE 1: THE FREEDOM RULE

2. Indirect Personal Attack

(Circumstantial variant):
Unreasonable suspicion is cast on
the other party’s self-interested
motives:
¡ Their opinion is traced back to their
personal stake in the matter and their
arguments are “unmasked” as
rationalizations.
¡ Ms. French believes that men are the
cause of environmental problems.
I cannot avoid the impression that she
must at some time in the past have
washed the dirty socks of a man she did
not love much, and therefore stopped
thinking.

11

5
 10/11/22

RULE 1: THE FREEDOM RULE

3. You also (tu quoque): If you reject your ¡ How can you tell me to study harder and to
opponent’s standpoint on the grounds that apply myself at college? You weren't a
they held a different opinion at some time standout student, and you spent more time
in the past. golfing than studying.
¡ Tu quoque presumes that anyone who is not
consistent cannot be right—but that does
not mean their standpoint is right.
¡ It is necessary to differentiate between
inconsistencies inside and outside the
discussion-–There is no fallacy if the
inconsistency is committed during the
discussion.

12

RULE 2: THE BURDEN OF PROOF RULE:

2. The Burden of Proof Rule: A party Critical Discussion Stage

who puts forward a standpoint is
obliged to defend it if asked to do so, ¡ Confrontation Stage
and a person who calls a standpoint
into question must be prepared to
¡ Opening Stage
assume the role of antagonist. ¡ Argumentation Stage
¡ Violations of rule 2 occur at the
¡ Concluding Stage
opening stage of a critical discussion by
protagonists.

13

6
 10/11/22

RULE 2: THE BURDEN OF PROOF RULE:

¡ Shifting the burden of proof occurs

when the protagonist shifts their
obligation to defend their standpoint
onto the person criticizing the
standpoint:“You first prove that it isn’t
so.”
¡ In this mixed difference of opinion,
Trump does not attempt to defend his
own standpoint, forcing Biden to defend
it for him.

15

RULE 2: THE BURDEN OF PROOF RULE:

¡ Arguers Evade their Burden of

Proof when they present it in such a
way that it needs no defense because
the opponent is quite wrong to doubt
it in the first place.
¡ Arguers can phrase their standpoint
as self-evident and indisputable.
¡ “It is obvious that ...,”
¡ “Nobody in their right mind would
deny that ...,”
¡ “It goes without saying that ...”

19

7
 10/11/22

RULE 2: THE BURDEN OF PROOF RULE:

¡ “I can personally assure you that …”

¡ Protagonists can also evade their
burden of proof by giving a personal
guarantee of the rightness of the
standpoint.
¡ This phrasing forces you to make a
choice: reject their standpoint or
abandon faith in the protagonist.
¡ “You can take it from me that …”
¡ “I cannot imagine any other
interpretation than that …”
¡ “There’s no doubt in my mind that
…”
¡ “I am absolutely convinced that …

20

RULE 2: THE BURDEN OF PROOF RULE:

¡ Protagonists can also evade their

burden of proof by immunizing their ¡ “Women are by nature possessive,”
standpoint against criticism through
¡ “Men are basically hunters”
hermetic formulations or
essential qualifications. ¡ The Frenchman is essentially
intolerant
¡ If you attempt to dispute these
standpoints, your examples will always ¡ The youth of today are lazy.
be inadequate.

21

8

RULE 3: THE STANDPOINT RULE
3. The Standpoint Rule: A Party’s
Attack on a Standpoint Must Relate
to the Standpoint That Has Indeed
Been Advanced by the Other Party.
¡ Violations of rule three can occur at
all stages of a critical discussion by
protagonists and antagonists.
22
RULE 3: THE STANDPOINT RULE
¡ Parties who violate the standpoint rule
commit the Fallacy of the Straw Man:
they attribute to their opponent a
standpoint they can attack and defeat
more easily.
¡ In this example, President Trump
attributes a fictitious standpoint to
a fictious group opposed to Christmas.
24
10/11/22
Critical Discussion Stage
¡ Confrontation Stage
¡ Opening Stage
¡ Argumentation Stage
¡ Concluding Stage
¡ “Now everyone’s very proud to be saying
‘Merry Christmas’ again. There was a
time when we went shopping and you
wouldn’t see ‘Merry Christmas’ on the
stores, you’d see a red wall and it
wouldn’t say that, it would say ‘Happy
Holidays’ or something, but it wouldn’t
say ’Merry Christmas.’ We’re back to
saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again in this
country and that’s something I consider a
great achievement because it really spells
out what’s happening.”
9
 10/11/22

FOR NEXT TIME

¡ Finish Ch. 7
¡ Read Chapter 8: Rules 6-10

30

10