Notes taken from ‘Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation’, by Frans van Eemeren et al.
Fallacies: Violations of the discussion rules. There are 10 rules that apply specifically to the argumentative discussions. The first 5 rules pertain to how parties should put forward their standpoints and arguments in order to work constructively toward a resolution of the difference of opinion… The other 5 rules pertain to the argumentation and the conclusion of the discussion…
1, Violations of the Freedom Rule
Rule 1: Parties must not prevent each other from putting forward standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints.
A difference of opinion can be satisfactorily resolved only if it is first brought to light… Restricting the other party’s freedom to act is an attempt to dismiss him as a serious party to the discussion…
Fallacy of the stick (argumentum ad baculum): Any threat that aims to restrict the other party from feely putting forward his standpoint or criticism.
Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam): To play on the other party’s emotions: “How can you have given me a failing mark for my thesis? I’ve worked on it night and day.”
Personal attack (argumentum ad hominem): Being directed not at the intrinsic merits of someone’s standpoint or doubt, but at the person itself…
Direct Personal Attack (abusive variant): What is being kicked is the person rather than the ball. The impression is given that someone stupid or evil could not possibly have a correct standpoint or a reasonable doubt…
Indirect Personal Attack (circumstantial variant): Suspicion is cast on the other party’s motives, for example by suggesting that the party has a personal interest in the matter and is therefore biased…
You also variant (tu quoque): An attempt is made to undermine the other party’s credibility by pointing out a contradiction in that party’s words or deeds… However, being inconsistent does not automatically mean that their standpoint is wrong (unless someone puts forward contradictory standpoints or arguments in the course of the discussion)…
2, Violations of the Burden-of-Proof Rule
Rule 2: A party who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so.
Protagonists can be released from the obligation to defend their standpoint if they have previously defended it successfully against the same antagonist and if nothing has changed… or if their opponents refuse to commit themselves to anything or are not prepared to follow the rules… If someone tries to get out of the obligation to defend a standpoint, the discussion will stagnate in the opening round, in which it is determined who is protagonist and who is antagonist.
Shifting the burden of proof: “You prove first that it isn’t so.” In a nonmixed difference of opinion, only one party puts forward a standpoint, so there is only one party who has anything to defend… In a mixed difference of opinion both parties have an obligation to defend their standpoint. The only decision to be made is what order they should present their defences…Perhaps the status quo be given status of presumption… or the standpoint that is easiest to defend be defended first (the principle of fairness)… But a mixed difference of opinion can never be completely resolved in an argumentative discussion until unless both of the parties meet the obligation to defend their standpoints.
Evading the burden of proof: Presenting the standpoint as something that needs no proof at all (“It is obvious that…”, “Nobody in their right mind would deny that…”) or giving a personal guarantee for the correctness of the standpoint (“I can assure you that…”) If this ploy works, antagonists may feel overwhelmed and fail to voice their doubts.
Hermetic formulations of standpoints: Formulating the standpoint in a way that amounts to making it immune to criticism because it cannot be tested or evaluated. “Women are by nature obsessive”, “Men are basically hunters”, “The Frenchman is essentially intolerant”. These standpoints refer to “men”, “women”, “the Frenchman”, avoiding quantifiers such as “all”, “some”, or “most”. How many examples or counterexamples are needed? Often, intangible (essentialistic) qualifications, such as “essentially”, “real”, “by nature”, are used as well… Any counterexample will be met by something like “that's not a ‘real’ woman acting according to her ‘true nature’.” All attempts at refutation thus bounce off armour of immunity.
3, Violations of the Standpoint Rule
Rule 3: A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has been advanced by the other party.
When the standpoint attacked is not the standpoint that was originally put forward by the protagonist, even if the disagreement seems to be resolved, it will be, at most, a spurious resolution. What the party seems to have successfully defended is not the same as what the other party has attacked.
The fallacy of the straw man: Parties misrepresent the opponent’s standpoint or attribute a fictitious standpoint to him or her. In both cases, they plan their attack by attributing to the opponent a standpoint that can be attacked more easily.
Attributing a fictitious standpoint to the other party:
- Emphatically putting forward the opposite standpoint. If someone says firmly, “I personally believe the defence of our democracy is of great importance”, she thereby suggests that her opponent thinks otherwise…
- Referring to a group to which the opponent belongs and linking that group with the fictitious standpoint: “She says that she thinks research is useful, but as a business person she naturally thinks it as a waste of money”…
- Using expressions such as “Nearly everyone thinks that…” and “Educators are of the opinion that…” It is not stated who actually holds the standpoint being attacked and there is no evidence that there really are people who adhere to the standpoint. Not only is the standpoint fictitious, but the opponent too.
Misrepresenting the opponent’s standpoint: Presenting it in a way that makes it more difficult to defend, or even untenable or ridiculous. This is often achieved by taking the standpoint out of context, by oversimplifying it, or by exaggerating it…
If the original formulation of the disputed standpoint can be consulted, it is possible to verify whether it has been represented accurately… Sometimes, the representation is so improbable that it is immediately suspect… In other cases, it helps to watch out for certain signals in the way the standpoint is represented (“Clearly the author is of the opinion that…”, “The author obviously assumes that…”)
4, Violations of the Relevance Rule
Rule 4: A party may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing argumentation related to that standpoint.
Accepting a standpoint on the basis of an irrelevant argument means the difference of opinion has not really been resolved.
Irrelevant argumentation: When the argumentation has no relation whatsoever to the standpoint that was advanced in the confrontation stage… The shift is intended to make the standpoint easier to defend…
Non-argumentation: When a standpoint is defended with means other than argumentation (for example, playing on the emotions, sentiments or biases of the intended audience), while at the same time the protagonist acts as though he or she were providing argumentation… Not usually for the purpose of convincing the other party, but of winning over a third party…
Pathetic fallacy (from the word “pathos”): Playing on the emotions of the audience…
Ethos: Speakers attempt to increase the audience’s faith in their expertise, credibility, or integrity, so that the audience will simply take their word for the standpoint’s acceptability…
Ethical fallacy or abuse of authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): When a person who claims to have expertise does not actually possess it or when the expertise is not relevant to the matter at hand…
5, Violations of the Unexpressed Premise Rule
Rule 5: A party may not falsely present something as a premise that has been left unexpressed by the other party or deny a premise that he or she has left implicit.
Magnifying what has been left unexpressed: Putting words in each other’s mouths. Exaggerating the unexpressed premise and thus making the standpoint easier to attack.
Denying an unexpressed premise: Protagonists refusing to accept commitment to an unexpressed premise implied by their own defence.
1 comment:
Further Notes and Examples
Violations of the Freedom Rule: Declaring a certain standpoint sacrosanct, not open to question (“I’m going to have the kitchen remodelled. We can discuss style and layout or anything you want, but not whether it will be done”) or taboo amongst other things.
Presumption: Supporters of a far-reaching measure (like reducing working hours) show that such a measure will have a beneficial effect, rather than the other side showing that it may have harmful consequences.
Fairness: A woman who has a right to alimony from her ex-husband notices that her ex-husband’s income has gone up and wants more alimony… It is very difficult for her to prove that his income has risen, in view of bank privacy and so on. The judge then shifts the burden of proof to the husband: he must put his papers on the table…
Exaggerating a standpoint by generalising it: May be accomplished by leaving out quantifiers like “some” and “few” and replacing them with “all”. The resulting standpoint is much easier to attack since only one counterexample is needed to show that the standpoint is untenable.
Simplifying a standpoint: Often achieved by leaving out nuances and restrictions. A good example of the first is accusing someone of having written that homeopaths are charlatans, whereas what the person had actually written was that homeopaths are a group “in which the line between legitimate and charlatan is very fuzzy”.
Argumentation relevant only to a standpoint that is not the one at issue (ignoratio elenchi): “Amateur sports are being ruined by all the alcohol that is sold at sports canteens, because research shows that 85% of all sports canteens sell alcohol”.
Pathetic fallacy: Examples of positives emotions that can be appealed to are feelings of security or loyalty. Examples of negative emotions that can be appealed to are fear, greed and shame.
Post a Comment