Rhetoric and Fallacies

RHETORIC AND

FALLACY

RHETORICGENERAL IDEA:

“STYLE IS ABOVE SUBJECT MATTER”

Rhetoric is the use of language in such a manner as to IMPRESS the hearers and INFLUENCE them for or against a certain course of action.

The ‘founding fathers’ generally viewed rhetoric as a means of persuasion, a tool towards capacitating pupils en route for speaking on every subject, either for or against.

RHETORICMAIN RHETORICIANS OF

ANTIQUITY

Rhetoric as an art was born in the island of Sicily.

Aristotle would have us believe that the father of technical rhetoric is Empedocles.

Other classical rhetoricians include Gorgias of Leontini, Agathon of Athens, Polus of Arigentum and Licymnius.

RHETORICARISTOTLE AND RHETORIC:

What is it?

The faculty of discovering the possible means of persuasion in reference to any subject whatever

RHETORICARISTOTLE AND RHETORIC:

What is its function?

To deal with things about which we deliberate, but for which we have no systematic rules; things which may be other than they are.

Used in the presence of hearers who are unable to take a general view of many stages, or to follow a lengthy chain of arguments

RHETORIC: PUBLIC SPEAKING

Three principles of speechmaking

1. The moral character/personality of the speaker

2. The task of putting the hearer(s) into a certain frame of mind

3. The speech itself: in so far as it is solid or appears solid


THE FOUR CORNER-STONES

1. CONVICTION2. PREPARATION3. DIRECTION4. DELIVERY: (crux)i. Introduce your ideaii.Make a caseiii.Advance your messageiv.Remember: Relate to your

audience through story, which story you can get from mining your life.


PERSONAL SPEAKING TOOLS

1. EYES

2. VOICE

3. BODY

FALLACIES: BASICSFallacies are psychologically persuasive errors in reasoning.

There are two types of fallacies: formal and informal fallacies.

A formal fallacy involves the explicit use of an invalid form

Informal fallacy involves an error at the level of the content of the argument.

FALLACY: BASICSWHY: By describing and labelling the more tempting fallacies, we increase our ability to resist their allure.

What is an argument?: An argument is a group of statements standing in relation to each other.

FALLACIES INVOLVING IRRELEVANT PREMISES

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM: Abusive ad Hominem. This involves a direct personal attach e.g.

1. Dr. Tange argues that stem-cell research is immoral. But Dr. Tange is an ultra right-wing lunatic who’s incapable of thinking objectively. Obviously his argument is nonsense.

2. Nietzsche’s philosophy is a load of rubbish. He was an atheist, and called himself an immoralist; he probably died of syphilis.


ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM: Circumstantial ad Hominem. This involves an attempt to discredit an argument by calling attention to the circumstances of those who advance it.

1. President Biya argues very much for his operation “grandes realisations”. But he just wants to pave the way for a good name when he retires, so we cannot take him sincerely.

2. You cannot take the Senate seriously; it is made up of old, retired and more or less disgruntled stomach-politicians.


ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM: Tu Quoque. It involves an attempt to suggest that the opponent is hypocritical or inconsistent. E.g.

1. What Mr. Tanju is saying about Public Speaking is untenable because he does not respect any of the principles himself.

2. Fr. Pedro cannot say we should not commit fornication. What is he doing with all the girls that visit him.


THE STRAW MAN FALLACY: This fallacy can be very effective from a rhetorical point of view and it often appears in political contexts. It occurs when the arguer attacks a misrepresentation of the opponent’s view.


ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM: This occurs when a conclusion is defended by a threat (whether explicit or implicit, physical or psychological) to the wellbeing of those who do not accept it.


ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM: This involves

attempting to persuade a person or

group of persons by appealing to the

desire to be accepted or valued by

others.


ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM: This is the attempt to support a conclusion merely by evoking pity in one’s audience when the statements that evoke the pity are logically unrelated to the conclusion.

e.g. The position open in the accounting department should be given to Frank. He’s got six hungry children to feed and his wife needs an operation to save her eyesight.


ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM: This involves any of the following: either

a. The claim that a statement is true or may be reasonably believed true simply because it hasn’t been proven false

b. The claim that a statemnt is false or may be reasonably believed false simply because it hasn’t been proven true.

FALLACY INVOLVING AMBIGUITYEQUIVOCATION

This occurs when two or more meanings of a word or a phrase are used in a context in which validity requires a single meaning of that word or phrase.

FALLACIES INVOLVING UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONSPETITIO PRINCIPII: An argument begs the question when it assumes the point to be proved.

e.g. “The defendant is not guilty of

the crime, for she is innocent of

having committed it.”

FALLACIES INVOLVING UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONSFALSE DILEMMAThis occurs when one uses a premise that unjustifiably reduces the number of alternatives to be considered, e.g. when the arguer assumes, without justification, that there are only two alternatives, when there are in fact three or more.

FALLACIES INVOLVING UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONSARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM This is an appeal to an unreliable authority. E.g.

1.There’s probably life on Mars, because Bishop Nkea says God told him so.

2.President Biya says that “Scary Movie” is excellent, so it must be worth seeing.

FALLACIES INVOLVING UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONSFALSE CAUSE FALLACY: When one possible cause of a phenomenon is illegitimately assumed to be the cause although reasons are lacking for excluding other possible causes. Forms include:

1. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc2. Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc

FALLACIES INVOLVING UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONSSLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY (another form of false cause fallacy) or ‘CATASTROPHIZING’This occurs when the arguer assumes that a chain reaction (usually harmful, playing on the deepest fears of the opponents) will occur but there is insufficient evidence that one or more events in the chain will cause the others. E.g. “If you forgive that student others will do the same and chaos will reign because of you.”

FALLACIES INVOLVING UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONSCOMPLEX QUESTION This fallacy consists in asking a question that illegitimately presupposes some conclusion alluded to in the question

e.g. “Mr John have you spent the money you stole from Mr Joseph?”

“Have you stopped beating your wife?”

Documents

Rhetoric and Fallacies