The I-Spy Book of Arguments
A few years ago I wrote a small piece on how letters to local newspapers made absolutely no sense when deconstructed even slightly. (here)
I look back on the section on "arguments" with interest now that I have discovered this comprehensive guide, by Michael C. Labossiere, to fallacies within arguments. My piece pales into insignificance when placed in the shadow of this fascinating site...and I am intrigued to see that some of the points I make have genuine, real-world titles. I had no idea, for instance, that when I wrote:
Crap extrapolation - usually a nightmare future is derived from a perfectly innocent development, eg "I see scientists have cured cancer. What next? Robots taking over the world?"
...that this, in fact, an example of what is known as the slippery-slope fallacy.
Sadly, these fallacies, or errors in reason, are pumped out by every man, woman and child every day. Sometimes they are genuine mistakes, but mostly they are used with a deep cynical intent as a dark bag of tricks to win arguments. We are surrounded by this...if you don't keep your wits about you, every argument you make will be destroyed by illusory weapons. Which is why this site is invaluable. The knowledge it contains are true weapons, and with them you are armed. Use them well.
It is not just a multitude of perverse arguments with which we are bombarded, however; there is also the tsunami of gibberish and bullshit that threatens to overwhelm us. But we are not defenceless against this either...it is gratifying to see that there are people out there constructing machinery to break down these walls. There are some good books coming out on these subjects and Francis Wheen's recent book, How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World, is an excellent example (related article here).
What must be understood is that attacking this kind of bullshit isn't just an exercise in liberal intellectualism. This affects all of us. These mumbo-jumbos form the foundation of lies that some very dangerous towers are then built upon. Politics, media, day-to-day relationships; all of them find themselves in the shadows of these towers, and until people learn to argue properly, this is where they will remain.
I look back on the section on "arguments" with interest now that I have discovered this comprehensive guide, by Michael C. Labossiere, to fallacies within arguments. My piece pales into insignificance when placed in the shadow of this fascinating site...and I am intrigued to see that some of the points I make have genuine, real-world titles. I had no idea, for instance, that when I wrote:
Crap extrapolation - usually a nightmare future is derived from a perfectly innocent development, eg "I see scientists have cured cancer. What next? Robots taking over the world?"
...that this, in fact, an example of what is known as the slippery-slope fallacy.
Sadly, these fallacies, or errors in reason, are pumped out by every man, woman and child every day. Sometimes they are genuine mistakes, but mostly they are used with a deep cynical intent as a dark bag of tricks to win arguments. We are surrounded by this...if you don't keep your wits about you, every argument you make will be destroyed by illusory weapons. Which is why this site is invaluable. The knowledge it contains are true weapons, and with them you are armed. Use them well.
It is not just a multitude of perverse arguments with which we are bombarded, however; there is also the tsunami of gibberish and bullshit that threatens to overwhelm us. But we are not defenceless against this either...it is gratifying to see that there are people out there constructing machinery to break down these walls. There are some good books coming out on these subjects and Francis Wheen's recent book, How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World, is an excellent example (related article here).
What must be understood is that attacking this kind of bullshit isn't just an exercise in liberal intellectualism. This affects all of us. These mumbo-jumbos form the foundation of lies that some very dangerous towers are then built upon. Politics, media, day-to-day relationships; all of them find themselves in the shadows of these towers, and until people learn to argue properly, this is where they will remain.
posted by Jamie at 1:33 PM
2 Comments:
Enjoyed the piece on local-paper letters. It might make a rather good drinking game.
I recently committed idiocy of the "Why oh why does Christmas seem to come earlier and earlier each and every year?" variety in my blog. In fact it occurs to me that the kinds of people who enjoy writing to their local papers -- just chuntering out their latest thoughts, however barking, onto paper and presenting them to the world -- would absolutely adore the world of blogging.
Let's not tell them about it, eh?
The interesting thing is that the more rabid or ill-informed the correspondent, the more letters they get printed. The editors know full well that these crazed correspondents require two people to help them screw their pants on every morning, and also know of the resultant entertainment value of their letters.
Here in Sheffield there's a particularly grotesque example in The Star; a pensioner by name of Susan I Richardson who appears practically daily. Her letters formed much of the inspiration for my original article. Among her many foibles is the fact that she appears to find dogshit fantastically charming and attractive, and will write hundreds of words defending any and all actions of her half-crazed mutt, chiefly on the basis that there is more human litter on the street than doggy crap. Er, so that's all right, then.
All I want to know is if these are the letters we do see printed, what are the ones we don't see like? Something like that could make an interesting book for some enterprising newspaper post boy...
Post a Comment
<< Home