Posted on 07/17/2013 5:45:55 AM PDT by don-o
In my last post I talked about something I’ve been noticing recently, that people, especially pro-life nerds like me, are tempted to talk about logical fallacies all the time in conversation. There are several dangers to this. I’ve argued already that the first danger is accusing somebody of a logical fallacy when they didn’t actually commit one.
If you dedicate yourself to educating yourself on what the logical fallacies actually are before bringing them up, you will be a more effective debater. But there’s a good, better, best aspect to exposing logical fallacies while creating good dialogues with people. I think the best way to expose logical fallacies is to note the specific fallacy mentally and then use questions to show the person the problem, without name dropping the specific fallacy.
My friend and colleague Trent Horn from Catholic Answers talked about this on an episode of Life Report. I’ll paraphrase what he said.
I would encourage people to not say ‘you committed X fallacy’ because it’s terribly presumptuous and arrogant and most people don’t appreciate talking to someone who points out every little fallacy they make. Instead you should follow Greg Koukl’s tactics and Justice For All’s training and ask, “why do you think that?” And then continue to ask follow up questions.
As Trent suggests, you could ask whether a bad person could be right about something. That’s so much better than accusing them of making an ad hominem fallacy!
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
Bookmark
This guy is worried about improperly accusing his opponents of logical fallacies and respecting their opinions, while the other side brings feces in jars to throw in protest.
Doesn’t seem like there is any potential for a meeting of the minds
Makes them freak out.
I guess it depends on how committed one is to upholding truth. Yes, on the edges, there ARE people with totally corrupt minds.
On account of The Fall, ALL minds are corrupted to some extent. The first task is to recognize and deal with, as best I can, the corruption of my own mind. Then, I may be equipped to recognize and deal with the corruption of others' minds.
This goes beyond logical fallacy, but still is important to recognize.
“Your Right, a guy should think before jumping into bed with a woman and getting her pregnant. A woman needs the right to choose, because she can't really think clearly before deciding to have sex. She really needs input from others as what choice to make about getting pregnant. After all, she is just a woman”.
It is funny to watch them as their heads explode with the logic of their argument.
Another approach I use when responding to fallacies, after there most often ridiculous comment, don’t use the word “BUT” when responding, rather use the word “AND” as if you are adding to their comment, your “and” statement can be completely opposite what they said, yet they are more willing to listen.
“But” has a negative aspect to their comment, “And” adds a positive aspect to the communication process.
Two things will happen with this technique, they will appreciate and think about your comment and ideally agree with you, or they will stare at you like an old mule, looking at a new gate.
(Sigh.)
“This guy is worried about improperly accusing his opponents of logical fallacies and respecting their opinions, while the other side brings feces in jars to throw in protest.”
I want to understand your argument. Are you saying that just because something won’t work in a specific instance it should not be used in any instance, e.g. on this forum?
I had two people at those rallies who changed their minds on abortion. So yes, some aren’t open. But some people are.
Personally I’m a fan of “if you’re pro choice, why can’t a guy choose not to pay child support because he never wanted a kid?”
Good illustration.
Maybe leftists ARE evolved from apes...
Alinsky you rotten bassturd, I read your book! With apologies to General Patton.
You all have good points that I must remember.
I admire your patience and charity. I am often too ready to write them all off, as it seems to me that the larger a pro-abort crowd grows, the more crass they become. Its clear there is no convincing a mob, but individuals can be persuaded.
No, it was a simple comment on the character of these "pro-abortion" crowds. Mobs can't be reasoned with, but obviously, individuals can.
I find I can generally focus on the bottom line. Is the fetus a human being or not? They usually come to agreement with that at some point in the argument. Then they change the subject and try to make it about choice again. They always end up talking about the baby being born into a terrible situation. Which to that I ask them if it is okay for a mother to decide to drown her newborn in a tub if she decided not to have an abortion? Why not if it is a matter of choice and we agree that a fetus is a human life?
I was one of that mob (has it been 10 years already?) time flies.
I stood in front of that mob. We put up graphic signs and held them up for about an hour or so. People respect courage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.