Khun fallacy hw - homework PDF

Preview

Summary

homework...

Description

Miriam Isakova Ms. Susan Kuhn BALA 103W 10:45 AM April 4, 2016 HW # 4

The sixth chapter of the textbook, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking, by M. Neil Browne, and Stuart M. Keeley (10th edition), discusses the importance of fallacies in critical thinking. A fallacy is a reasoning trick that an author might use while trying to persuade you to accept a conclusion. It is often a mistaken belief that is based on an unsound argument. In this paper, I will analyze a statement of denial made by Marion Jones, an American world champion Olympic track and field athlete. In 2004, USADA accused her of taking performance-enhancing drugs while competing in the Olympics. Her statement of denial is regarding the use of performance enhancing drugs, and in it, she defends herself by using several fallacies. In my analysis, I will identify several fallacies that she uses in her statement (uploaded to YouTube on November 12, 2008), and I will explain their significance. The first fallacy I will discuss is her use of Begging the Question. In an argument that begs the question, the conclusion is used as the reasoning for the conclusion. An example of when Jones begs the question is when she states “USADA has no information that shows that I have ever failed a test, because, simply, I have never failed a test.” Here, she uses the conclusion that she has never failed a drug test, as the reason for her not ever failing a drug test. This is an obvious example of a fallacy because it does not address the drug use, and even further, it does not give a real reason to serve as evidence that she did not use drugs. Another fallacy that Jones uses in her statement is the Straw Person fallacy. The Straw Person Fallacy is a way of distorting the opponent’s point of view so that it is easy to attack, thus we attack a point of view that does not truly exist. In her statement, Jones attacks USADA’s way of prosecuting. She says “I should have been cleared a long time ago, instead, the only thing USADA appears to be doing is trying to secretly change the standards of proof and the process that applies in these types of matters in the middle of the game, so they can achieve the USADA desired results.”

Here, she claims that USADA has a secret agenda, essentially distorting the opponent’s point of view in order to attack it and deem it unfair. By distorting USADA’s objective, Jones draws attention to an issue that is not a priority in this matter. The issue here is whether or not she used drugs, not the validity (or lack thereof) of USADA’s goals. A third fallacy that Jones uses to justify her claims is the Explaining By Naming fallacy. Explaining By Naming is a way of falsely assuming that because you have provided a name for some event or behavior, you have also adequately explained the event. In her statement, Jones says, “Let me be clear, I am more than happy to answer every question, but I am not going to engage in USADA’s secret kangaroo court.” By calling USADA’s prosecution process a “kangaroo court”, she portrays it as an unofficial court that is held by a group of people that makes accusations without any evidence. With the name calling, she falsely assumes that since she named their behavior, she has also sufficiently explained the behavior, but she has not. This lack of explanation leads us to believe that USADA’s prosecution methods might be unfair, but the real issue here is whether Jones has taken drugs. And that issue, she still hasn’t addressed. In conclusion, when I first listened to Jones’ statement, I sympathized with her completely, and I believed that she was innocent. After listening more carefully, and identifying the fallacies in her statement, I realized that in much of her speech, she uses conclusions as reasons, she distorts USADA’s true intentions, and she calls USADA names to almost demonize them, and thereby appear more innocent than she might actually be. Although I still believe that Jones can be innocent, I am more aware of the flaws in her argument, and consider her position with more questions. After realizing that her arguments could be falsely persuasive, I am unsure about my opinion of her innocence. The change in my opinion speaks to the importance of fallacies in arguments, as it shows that they can persuade audiences before they consider arguments completely....