Convincing People You re Right, With Style. actuality it is not. Writing in this form is simply making use of both critical thought, and

Transcription

1 Everett Butler Hanson Advanced Comp. January, 4, 2018 Convincing People You re Right, With Style Abstract The idea of philosophical writing may seem high minded and intimidating at first, but in actuality it is not. Writing in this form is simply making use of both critical thought, and argumentative skills to state and defend a point. Because it is philosophy, most writing will focus on larger questions that barely ever have very clear answers, but the practices used in philosophical writing can be easily applied to all writing. Knowing exactly how to argue is essential, and no argument can be properly crafted without avoidance of logical fallacies.

2 Introduction Philosophy is not something high minded or prestigious, nor is it something to be feared. The direct translation of philosophy is love of knowledge ( Frequently Asked ). This means that anybody willing to think deeply about a topic can be considered a philosopher, but when it comes to writing philosophy down, there are more steps than just thinking. Written philosophy is an argument in favor of one s thesis, once you have decided on a thesis you must be able to argue why it is correct. The Writing Philosophy, and by extension philosophical writing, is based around the concepts of argument and critical thinking. An idea or question is put forward and it is the job of the philosopher to write their answer and prove it to be correct. Average questions philosophers examine normally center around topics like: personal identity, ethics, mind and body, knowledge, and religion ( Frequently Asked ). In this quote the writer debates the meaning of Socrates s philosophy on laws. If the passages are read in this way, we can interpret Socrates' claim as ii above. When he says that one must obey the state's final laws and orders, what he means is that one must do anything it tells one to do within the bounds of justice, and that one must endure anything it tells one to endure. Thus, Socrates was not obligated to capture Leon of Salamis, and would not be obligated to cease philosophizing if ordered to, since that would be doing something wrong (i.e. something that is not within the bounds of justice); but he is obligated to accept and endure his punishment, as long as it was arrived at through proper judicial procedures. The latter is true, according to Socrates, even though

3 the punishment is wrong; for by suffering it, he is not himself doing anything wrong, but only enduring something wrong. This is perfectly consistent with Socrates' exhortation never to do anything wrong. (Fitzpatrick) Because many of the questions philosophers examine are up to the interpretation of each individual, there is normally no singular consensus on any given topic. However, this quote is a good example of adopting another's philosophy. In saying What he means the writer is preparing his own unique argument that is still based on the topic at hand. This new interpretation means that the audience being written for are those who also practice philosophy, and will be prone to disagreeing or agreeing with what is presented to them. It is important to remember that the side one takes must be their own, unless one actively decides the philosophy of someone before them is the correct one. In the case that one does decide to argue the point of a philosopher before them it is still an argument presented by the individual, only in the stead of someone they agree with and who has managed to think about the same thing before them. Knowledge of what to argue for is one thing, but it is the knowledge of how to create a strong argument that is most essential to philosophical writing. The Argument With argument being so essential to philosophical writing, one must learn not only how to argue, but to argue correctly. Without a solid argument in favor of his or her answer, a philosopher has little more than an opinion, which is not a philosophy. Because argument is so important to the writing of philosophy the idea of logical fallacies must be known to the writer. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid and must be avoided at all costs (Albert).

4 Logical fallacies often fall into one of two categories which are separated by Pathos and Logos. These terms are commonly associated as a trio with the third term being Ethos. The reason Ethos is not included is because it stands for ethics, both of the speaker and of the argument. Where the speaker is involved, it is a fallacy to discredit or readily accept an argument based entirely on the speaker themselves without listening to what they have to say. In philosophy, ethics is the issue of the debate itself and not part of the argument. Not only is ethics omitted due to it being a topic of debate, it is also omitted because it is repetitive, as most of the logical fallacies under both logos and pathos have some connection to ethos as well. From here on, this paper will focus on logical fallacies and where they fit in, and be split accordingly into the two sections of Pathos and Logos. Pathos Pathos is emotion, and logical fallacies that fall into this category are ones that appeal to emotion. An appeal to emotion disregards sense and attempts to overpower critical thinking with emotional nonsense (Fantino). Ad Hominem : This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments ( Logical Fallacies ). Ad Hominem disregards all other points that one may hold in favor of personal attack. It is not an argument that can be examined critically, but rather an insult to the opposite party. In accidentally using Ad Hominem one is ignoring the points of debate and thus setting themselves up to fail by not addressing them. Example of Ad Hominem: You shouldn t listen to what Mark has to say about global warming because he smells bad and his hair is messy.

5 In this example, the speaker is dismissing Mark on the basis of looks and personal hygiene without having evaluated what he has to say. The speaker may be entirely correct about Mark, but their argument is invalid because it does not address what Mark s argument is, it merely insults him. Ad Populum :This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive (such as patriotism, religion, democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the real issue at hand ( Logical Fallacies ). Ad Populum seeks to confuse the argument by appealing to what is considered popular or desired. An argument that uses Ad Populum is normally weak, backed up by nothing but its emotional appeal and the arguers opinion. Example of Ad Populum: Real Americans eat beef In this example the speaker is appealing to patriotism even though being American and the amount of beef one eats are entirely unrelated. The argument falls apart because it does not actually make sense. One can be an American without any requirements on what they eat, but attempting to equate eating beef to how American one is is an emotional appeal that is not based on logic. Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities( Logical Fallacies ) Moral equivalence is a popular comedic tool as well as a powerful method of deception. It works by comparing two misdeeds or people to one another as if the two are equally bad. Example of Moral Equivalence: I caught Amanda littering in the hallway and she refused to pick it up, she s as bad as Hitler!

6 In this example, the speaker is comparing the negligence of someone who has committed a misdemeanor to Hitler, a man responsible for the misguided militarisation of an entire country and the death of millions. This argument is invalid because the comparison is unfair and inaccurate, the actions of the two parties are in no way similar or comparable. Logos Logos is logic. Fallacies that fall under Logos twist logic in ways that make the argument illogical. Logos fallacies often sound reasonable at first, but fall apart when examined critically(fantino) Post hoc ergo propter hoc (False Cause): This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A' (Richardson). False cause is an argument that revolves around the ordering of events, but superficially skips anything else that could have happened in between said events in favor of a direct and invalid conclusion. Example of False Cause: I drank water before I got sick, so it s the water that made me sick! In this example, the speaker argues that because he became sick after drinking water, it was that same water that made him sick. Without knowing anything else, this argument seems valid enough, but when examined it is illogical. Without any evidence except for the order of events, there is no way to be certain that it was the water that made the speaker sick. Because of this the speaker's argument is invalid because they are blaming the circumstance on an unrelated factor with no evidence.

7 Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it ( Logical Fallacies ). Circular arguments restate what would be the thesis point of one s essay a second time as the evidence for it instead of presenting actual evidence. Circular arguments are sometimes difficult to catch, but by looking at an argument in two parts, one can find them due to their lack of real evidence. Example of Circular Argument: That gift was expensive because it cost a lot of money Initially the speaker in this example sounds logical enough, but examining what they have said reveals a lack of evidence. To see this lack of evidence, break the argument up into two parts. The first part of the gift was expensive means that the gift cost a lot of money, and the second part of because it cost a lot of money means that the gift was expensive. This is the essence of a circular argument. The interchangeable nature of both halves of the example shows how there is no real evidence in the argument. To prove either half of the argument factual, evidence like the actual price of the product is needed. Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth ( Logical Fallacies ). Genetic Fallacy is an argument that is based on the origins of the debated subject instead of the actual merits the object holds. The argument that uses Genetic Fallacy does not take into account the actual item itself, but rather focuses entirely on where it came from. Example of Genetic Fallacy: You only know how to swim because you re from Brazil, In this example the speaker is saying the reason behind someone's skill at swimming is based on the country they are from. This argument is invalid because there is no real connection

8 or evidence to support the statement as someone who is from Brazil could just as easily have no knowledge of swimming as someone who does. Conclusion Philosophy and debate go hand in hand and have done so since their conception. If one wishes to write and participate in philosophy, one must be able to put forward and defend their ideas. Any argument that is riddled with logical fallacies will fall apart under the slightest scrutiny (Horban). It is with evidence and proper logic that an opinion ceases to be just that and becomes an argument. While the questions philosophy poses are often open ended, argument encourages and facilitates thought. It is this urge to think that the basis of philosophy is founded on, and it is the logic that results in this thought that any argument meant to persuade requires to exist, philosophical or not (Frazier).

9 Works Cited Albert, Mark. Straight thinking. Modern Machine Shop, July 2017, p. 16. Vocations and Career Collection, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/a /gps?u=anna39031&sid=gps&xid=dbabef0d. Accessed 1 Dec Fantino, Edmund, et al. Logical fallacies: a behavioral approach to reasoning. The Behavior Analyst Today, vol. 4, no. 1, 2003, p Academic OneFile, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/a /gps?u=anna39031&sid=gps&xid=f9e347c2. Accessed 1 Dec Frequently Asked Questions. Mount Holyoke, Mount Holyoke, Accessed 3 Jan Fitzpatrick. "Information on Writing Philosophy Papers." University of Rochester, University of Rochester, Accessed 18 Jan Frazier, Kendrick. The Spectrum of skepticism. Skeptical Inquirer, Sept.-Oct. 2017, p. 4. Academic OneFile, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/a /gps?u=anna39031&sid=gps&xid=a90efa8d. Accessed 1 Dec Horban, Peter. Writing A Philosophy Paper. Simon Fraser University, by Horban, p. 1. Simon Fraser University, Accessed 17 Nov

10 Logical Fallacies, Purdue OWL. 11 Mar. 2013, owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/. Accessed 17 Nov Richardson, Jesse. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. yourlogicalfallacyis.com, 1st ed., school of thought.org, //yourlogicalfallacyis.com. Accessed 1 Dec Stephen s guide. Stephen Downes, 1995, onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm. Accessed 1 Dec