_Politics and Logical Fallacies_ 
(http://kemetic-independent.awardspace.us/Interfaith/logical-fallacy.htm) 
 
 



 
kemetic-independent.awardspace.us/Interfaith/logical-fallacy.


 
 
 
 
 
Arguments, Politics, and Logical  Fallacies
Fight Spin With Facts 
Elections in the United States have always been surrounded by  hype. In the 
days before live television coverage and radio commercials,  candidates 
passed out buttons and had catchy songs made up about them. But in  today's 
mass media world, we swim in a sea of electoral ballyhoo. Mud-slinging  t.v. 
commercials, nationally broadcast debates and worse, the 'spin' that  
newscasters and journalists put onto everything, drown out the real issues. But 
 the 
most potent weapons against hype and sensationalism are facts. If you're an 
 American citizen who can vote, arm yourself here with information before 
you hit  the polls on election day. Forget 'civic duty'--you owe it to 
yourself.  Fight the spin with facts.
 
 
How Do I Sort Out Logical Fallacies? 

Political ads are a  fact of life around election time, but don't let them 
mislead you. You can fight  propaganda with logic by learning about common 
logical fallacies that  people use to persuade others. 
What Are Logical Fallacies? A logical  fallacy is any argument that does 
not use sound reasoning in its effort to  persuade. Logical fallacies are all 
around us: in advertising, in politics, and  in written arguments of every 
type and medium. By learning to spot these flaws  in reasoning, you can bec
ome a more informed consumer and more judicious about  other people's 
arguments. Here are some common logical fallacies: 
False analogy-- Generally  an analogy (comparing one thing to another) is 
one of the most difficult types  of argument to support. When someone 
compares two entities that their audience  will not find similar, or compares 
things that are not adequately like one  another, this is a false analogy.  
False use of authority--This happens when someone cites as an authority a  
person or group of people who either have no true expertise in the topic 
being  argued, or else are not recognized by the potential audience as a 
respectable  authority. Often you will see misuse of authority in the form of 
political ads  quoting "experts" to lend an air of authority to a candidate, or 
a written  argument citing another author's work that isn't an adequately 
related  subject. 
Either/or reasoning--  Assuming that there are only two possible 
alternatives on a given issue. A very  simple but classic example would be, 
"America--love it or leave it." This  assumes that all citizens should either 
be 
openly patriotic, or else not be  citizens at all. That fallacy overlooks the 
possibilty of someone who is happy  being an American citizen but dislikes some 
government policies, and so on. Many  issues of national concern are 
subject to either/or arguments, but even  personal discussions can fall prey to 
this reasoning flaw. 
Burden of proof-- When someone fails to support their argument and  simply 
makes assertions, they fail to accept the burden of proof.  Failing to back 
up any given statement in an argument shifts the burden of proof  to the 
audience and assumes they will accept it automatically. 
Non sequitur-- This is Latin for "it does not follow". When one  statement 
does not follow another logically, it is a non sequitur  statement and does 
not provide reasonable proof. 
Ad hominem-- Another Latin term, meaning "against the man" or "to  the 
man". Essentially, it consists of any personal attack against someone making  
an 
argument, and not the argument itself. This is also known as a character  
attack. It happens most often in political mudslinging ads and Internet flame 
 wars. 
Straw Man-- Building a straw man involves attacking a  particularly weak or 
easily countered part of someone else's argument while  ignoring larger, 
more difficult points that are harder to counter-argue. This  makes the 
opposing argument seem weaker by only drawing attention to points  easiest to 
knock down, hence the term "straw man". 
Red Herring-- Another form  of redirecting attention away from difficult 
issues by inserting an unrelated  issue. This avoids confronting an argument 
directly. 
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc-- Also Latin and meaning, "after this, therefore 
because of this". This  is the assumption that because one thing happened 
before another, it naturally  had to be the cause. For example, blaming 
troubled economic times on a previous  government's administration without 
providing direct proof of poor economic  policies would be assuming post hoc, 
ergo 
propter hoc. 
Appealing to emotion--  While appeals to emotion can be useful in other 
areas, they have no place as a  form of proof in a logical argument. Appealing 
to emotion can also be misused,  by trying manipulate an audience into 
feeling frightened or guilty about  something. Critics of Bush's 2003 State of 
the Union address, for example,  charge that descriptions of Iraq's weapons of 
mass destruction and their  readiness for use was meant to inspire fear in 
order to support invasion.  Another thing to pay attention to is choice of 
wording; sometimes a particular  word or connotation can be deliberately used 
to get a certain  reaction. 
Source: Reading Critically, Writing Well: A Reader  and Guide. Second 
edition. Axelrod, Rise B. and Cooper, Charles R. New York:  St. Martin's Press. 
1990.  
Special thanks to Dr. Clayton Delery, professor of English at  Louisiana 
School for Math, Science and the Arts.
 
 
Fact Versus Opinion
Another major obstacle voters face is bias in the media. Most of the  time 
we hear the accusation that the media is 'liberal' or 'left-wing'. But is  
this really true? It's important to be aware of possible bias, especially in  
news coverage of debates or campaign stops. Ask yourself: are they 
describing a  particular candidate in a consistently negative or positive 
light? Do 
they use  stronger descriptions of one or another? Do they support their 
arguments  properly? As always, beware of flawed  logic!

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to