On page 201, we're given a list of common content fallacies that we may encounter. I'm choosing to write about the "Phony Refutation" fallacy as I've heard an argument dealing with it quite recently.
The fallacy itself deals with trying to void another person's argument because of certain actions or claims he/she has made in the past.
An everyday situation example would be something like:
Person A: "You really shouldn't start smoking cigarettes."
Person B: "Who are you to say anything? You smoke all the time."
We can see an inconsistency between the advice and the actions of Person B, but you need to look beyond the inconsistency and at the circumstances. Person B could have severe health problems caused by smoking and is terribly addicted to cigarettes. Person B is giving legitimate advice to Person A, but instead Person A shrugs it off due to the fact that they perceive it as hypocritical, when really Person B is speaking from experience.
I've also heard this between several friends of mine. One particular friend, we'll call him "Bob", was in favor of legalizing cannabis on the upcoming November ballot, citing the evidence that tax revenue it would generate would greatly benefit California. Several of my other friends, who are strongly close-minded and won't even consider any rational thought outside of their own personal beliefs, said his argument was "stupid" because "Bob" smokes marijuana fairly often and "should have no say in it due to bias". They tried saying "Bob" only wanted to legalize cannabis just so he could smoke more, not even taking into account his actual argument which focused on legitimate reasons such as the tax revenue it would generate for the state, the prison space it would clear up, and the money it would save taxpayers from enforcing marijuana laws that aren't working.
No comments:
Post a Comment