I decided to talk about Section D, Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion. This concept of fallacy has to do with an argument that is taken the wrong way or intentionally misleading. There are several different types of these violations:
~ Begging the question: The premises have to be taken more seriously and questioned more carefully than the conclusion. That is, they have to be reasonable and credible.
~ Strawman: Instead of owning up to loosing an argument, a person can put down someone else's argument and put words into his or her mouth.
~ Shifting the burden of proof: Giving someone else the responsibility of your argument instead of taking it upon yourself to back up.
~ Relevance: An opinion that premises are not important for the argument that makes the argument very weak and not fixable.
A real world example that I have heard is an argument that I had with my firend. We were talking about God existance. He claims that God does not exist. I said, "Prove that God doesn't exist". I am putting the responsibility of proof onto my friends hands.
I can't believe your friend does not believe in GOD. Many people do not but Io believe that they just need to realize that all this within the universe has a higher and greater being.
ReplyDeleteIf your friend asks you proof of GOD, you should just tell him or her that the universe is a proof of GOD. GOD created all things and he is our savior.
As for the other things that you wrote on this blog, I like the strawman factor. I see that everyday whenever we are in SJSU. Everyone is just blaming each other.
Over all, Great blog!!!