Blog post 2 pt 2

DeMornay Pierson-El

Rhetoric

 Slothful induction Fallacy consists of an unfair argument. Proof is presented, however the opposing side is denying all proof due to their own reasoning. However the reasoning is not accurate, and ignorant to the facts. A person who is arguing against all facts, can be manipulative in what they really want to focus the argument on. A sloth is referred to as a slow moving, lazy individual who lacks in motivation to do what is best. The induction increases the argument, makes you think as well as wonder how a person could come to that specific conclusion. The fallacy is the unwillingness to even try to understand the proof given. This would fall alongside with telling someone they are lying to you, although they are really telling the truth.

However the truth can vary based on the induvial. The sloth in this fallacy would ignore each and every person coming with proof, explanation, facts and evidence. The sloth would matter of fact come up with their own conclusion and reasoning. Even though it will not make sense the argument will still advance by the opposing side explaining why the sloth is wrong. Which would change the argument itself, into a new focus of who is right and who is wrong. The sloth doesn’t focus on the specific problems, instead creates another issue, and reasoning that makes no sense.

Trusting someone is hard to do. In any situation, as a person tells their side of the story it can be true to the extent they believe it. The fact could simply be the same problem is reoccurring, there for why deny it is happening? A coincidence would be a remarkable concurrence of circumstances or events with apparent connection. This would be the reason a person would go to instead of believing the proof given.

Being involved in the slothful induction also involves a game of goalposts. Regardless of what is being told to you, your response is always different from the information shown. For example, a female could be head over heels in love with a man. Even though this man cheats and does it often, she still loves him and will not leave. She is the sloth in this situation because the situation was reoccurring and still she chose to stay with the cheating man. Instead of understanding he may not love her the same way back, she figures he cheats when she makes him upset.

I think the slothful induction is often used so outsiders who may not understand your personal reasoning can mind their business. People often want to speak on what does not concern them, or introduce information to start conversation or evoke emotion. By playing the ignorant, “that’s not the only reason”, I need more examples brings an arguer annoyance. By doing that, the conversation may end sooner, and the sloth doesn’t have to engage with conversation that is demeaning to their common sense. Perception is different among all people, being blind to certain facts may be how some people choose to live their life.

Blog post 2 Pt1

DeMornay Pierson-El

Rhetoric

Blog 2

How much trust can you give a stranger? How much trust can you give a person you care about that hurt you previously. Trust is a very touchy subject because once it is gone you cannot get it back. Some people are blind to what is right in front of them, and continue to trust what they know. For example, friends could come back and tell you you’re significant other is cheating on you, but because you feel the love is so strong you deny it. You come up with excuses for them, even though your friends are showing you screenshots of conversation.

Slothful induction Fallacy consists of an unfair argument. Proof is presented, however the opposing side is denying all proof due to their own reasoning. However the reasoning is not accurate, and ignorant to the facts. A person who is arguing against all facts, can be manipulative in what they really want to focus the argument on. A sloth is referred to as a slow moving, lazy individual who lacks in motivation to do what is best. The induction increases the argument, makes you think as well as wonder how a person could come to that specific conclusion. The fallacy is the unwillingness to even try to understand the proof given. This would fall alongside with telling someone they are lying to you, although they are really telling the truth.

However the truth can vary based on the induvial. The sloth in this fallacy would ignore each and every person coming with proof, explanation, facts and evidence. The sloth would matter of fact come up with their own conclusion and reasoning. Even though it will not make sense the argument will still advance by the opposing side explaining why the sloth is wrong. Which would change the argument itself, into a new focus of who is right and who is wrong. The sloth doesn’t focus on the specific problems, instead creates another issue, and reasoning that makes no sense.

Trusting someone is hard to do. In any situation, as a person tells their side of the story it can be true to the extent they believe it. The fact could simply be the same problem is reoccurring, there for why deny it is happening? A coincidence would be a remarkable concurrence of circumstances or events with apparent connection. This would be the reason a person would go to instead of believing the proof given. “It’s a coincidence that you continue to crash your car every time after you drink?” a person may ask the “sloth” in this sense. The explanation for the crash would be, I do not have a good car according to the sloth. The person would then get into conversation about what type of cars are best for safety. This changes the argument focus, as well as ignoring the issue of possibility being an alcoholic. Slothful induction fallacy keeps you on your toes, because the main focus is to remain focused. Not to let the sloth stir your thoughts or change your motives because the reasoning behind it can be altered.

Three Men make a Tiger

Tanner Townsend
Blog Post #2

COMM 250

May 26, 2017

           

            For Blog Post #2 I chose the fallacy ‘Three Men Make a Tiger’. This fallacy interested me more than the others because it made complete sense, and connected with me. I would never think twice about something/someone if multiple individuals came to me stating it was truth. It made me wonder about many things I may have believed, even though they had no veracity. In this fallacy, a Chinese idiom, there was a Warring States period, about 5^th century BC. There included seven main distinguished states, who were often know to create alliances. One year, a state decided to ally with another and exchanged princes as hostages to ensure loyalty/trust. A minister of one of the states was to accompany its prince to the allied state. He became worried about the ill speaking of him to his king while he was away. It is said that the minister came to his king and asked, “if someone were to tell you that there was a tiger running in the street, would you believe it?" The king said no. Pang Cong (the minister) replied, "if two people were to tell you there was a tiger running in the street, would Your Majesty believe it?” The king admitted he may suspect it. Finally, Cong responds, "what if three people were to tell you that?" After a moment of thought the king confesses he would believe it. The minister assures the king that there is no tiger outside, while explaining to him that seeing a tiger in a busy place is absurd, but when multiple people made the claim the possibilities became real. Cong told the king that he would be leaving soon to escort his son, and asked him to refrain from believing the men speaking ill of Cong to the King. The king agreed to give his discernment. However, just as Pang feared, after he left the king believed the slanderous gossip about him and no longer trusted him. “The fallacy is used to describe cases in which when a lie is repeated enough, it will be accepted as truth. “What everyone is saying must be true.” This is directly correlated to Argumentum ad populum, as well as Appeal to the People. This can be a problem, and result in extreme flaw because there is no evidence to support the claims being made. No mayhem in the marketplace, no uproar of fear or devastation because of the tiger’s extraordinary appearance. There is nothing to show of the statements being made but those making them. And even then, how do you know they are a creditable, trustworthy, and ethical source? I may have believed some crazy things, but I also know when to filter what I know is bull. At that moment, this is strictly gossip, or as they call it, “he say, she say”. Also, the fallacy may also lack logical thinking. If what you’re being told is something that you know is preposterous, you accept it simply because it’s said? Our tendency to believe absurd info is rooted in motivated reasoning. Which is also a flaw. We are motivated to accept things that we believe “confirm our opinions”, this cognitive bias can result in a false social consensus over time. As well as social consensus reality. Which if you are a part of a high/noble society, like Pang, consensus is treated as facts – with no proof. However, beliefs with low consensus are then treated complete opposite. I still appreciate the fallacy, with respect to its origin. And I have taken a lot from its intended purpose – despite flaw.

Texas Sharpshooter

Blog post 2

Texas sharpshooter

Zack Darlington

5/26/17

In class we defined a fallacy as an incorrect reasoning that render arguments logically unsound. Although these reasoning’s may be false, they can still be very persuasive. In todays day and age, most arguments are viewed as invalid until there is some form of proof given to support the claim. This is where the Texas sharpshooter fallacy takes form. Many weight loss adds supply you with information regarding a study that seems nearly impossible. But then again, these are the results from their study, right? Why shouldn’t we believe them?

            The Texas sharpshooter fallacy consists of ignoring specific data but stressing certain similarities. The name itself has a way of explain the fallacy. In other words, someone can fire their rifle into the side of a barn. Once they’re done firing, they inspect the shots and find the closest grouping. Then, they place a target around the grouping, which portrays them as a “sharpshooter”. This fallacy is meant to provide information that appears to be extremely accurate, while the remainder of the data is ignored.

            This fallacy has a number of flaws. First, the fallacy aims to focus on only the data that confirms the study. Without understanding the elements, context or other results, one can not make an accurate interpretation of the data that is presented. An example of this would be if a study was conducted to see if living next to power lines can cause health illness. Hypothetically, say the study finds that in fact those living within X amount of meters from power lines develop severe illnesses. Concluding that these illnesses are directly related to the power lines would seem logical, to some. But in fact, such illnesses could have been caused from other sources. Ignoring those other sources and concluding that power lines cause these major illnesses would be an act of the Texas Sharp shooter.

            Another example comes from a Netflix documentary titled “BIGGER, FASTER, STRONGER”. The documentary analyzes the use of steroids in the fitness industry and how that impacts society. During an interview with a sponsored fitness model, he was asked if he actually takes the product that he endorses. “Yes, of course.” A follow up question asked if that was the only thing he takes to stay in shape? “No. If you choose to believe that, then that’s your choice”. When these companies place models on their products and describe how you can look just like them if you use their product, there’s actually a possibility that you can’t. (SHOCKER) But by focusing on the person who is endorsing the product and believing that this product helped them get so fit, we are once again caught in this fallacy. The sharpshooter hits again.

            When it comes to fallacy, they can be difficult to spot. As for this fallacy, it may help to be a little more skeptical than usual. Rather than focusing on the facts that are highlighted, question the ways in which they were found. This can help you from falling victim to the infamous outlaw, the Texas sharpshooter.