Logical Fallacies Reflection, 11/27/2016

Logical fallacies are everywhere. On every corner, you hear things like "If you do this, you will be that" or "Since everyone is doing it, you should too". Because it's so deeply integrated into our lives, sometimes it's hard to notice the logical error in such statements. I think that the lesson we had in class helped me better understand how widespread these errors in reasoning are, and how commonly they are used in advertisements and media for the purpose of swaying the public from one side of the argument to another. 

Let's take a look at a Subway commercial that came out in 2012, starring Michael Phelps and his mother Debbie. This advertisement is several logical fallacies at once. Firstly, it's an appeal to authority. Michael Phelps is a very successful athlete, so if he says that Subway sandwiches are good, it must be true. It's also a false cause fallacy, because it traces a connection that if you want to be like Michael Phelps, you should eat Subway. Lastly, the advertisement uses an appeal to emotion fallacy when it shows the interaction between mother and her son. "Look, she is bringing him food because she wants him to be fueled during his training, and recover quickly afterwards. Isn't it sweet?" But in the end, all of these statements are false. Neither Phelps' authority nor his mother's caring character signify that Subway sandwiches are good or helpful in accomplishment of one's goals. 

What did make me want to eat at Subway was the food closeups at the end of the clip. More cheese-pulling and bacon-juice-dripping please!

Don't Fight Flames With Flames, 11/19/2016

Social media has slowly taken over our lives. It is hard to imagine what the world would be like if internet just suddenly disappeared. Besides serving as a collection of all imaginable and unimaginable information, social media is a platform where people can communicate with each other. We all have thoughts and opinions, and websites such as Facebook and Twitter allow us to freely share them, as well as discuss our disagreements. However Nick Bilton, the author of the article “Don’t Fight Flames with Flames”, believes that arguing online is a waste of time – besides often ending in anything but consensus, arguing on social media can lead to an entire digital mob that will “circle” around its target and throw bitter and vulgar insults its way.  Personally, I agree with Bilton's statement. I find social media to be extremely toxic, and many of its users, who think that there could be no punishment for their words, utilize their freedom of speech in the most degrading and insulting ways. I believe that the main cause of such actions is not cruelty, but rather a blurry line that separates an insult from an ordinary negative comment. What can offend one person, might go unnoticed by another, and unless you know an individual personally, you would not know what topics could trigger them. If each one of us attempts to, before engaging in an online conversation,learn a little more about one another - browsing one's profile can do the deal - the dialogue could be more productive since we know what line not to cross. 

Fear Your Toaster More Than Nuclear Power, 11/5/16

Claims of fact are well known for raising controversy and challenging popular beliefs. Taylor Pearson, the author of an epideictic article"Why You Should Fear Your Toaster More Than Nuclear Power", develops an argument that nuclear power is not at all dangerous to human health, and the fear of nuclear power is nothing more than the media over-exaggeration.

In developing his argument, Pearson mainly uses second-hand evidence. When addressing the "the likelihood of a nuclear power plant killing large numbers of people", the author brings in historical example of the Chernobyl accident, "the worst and most lethal nuclear incident to date." He combines it with several pieces of quantitative evidence, such as "the incident has killed only eighty-two people", "thirty-two were killed in the effort to put out fires", and "thirty-eight died...as a result of acute radiation poisoning." Such use of evidence can be called effective - not only does he bring in an example and then support it with factual evidence, Pearson's diction, such as the use of "only" and "few", further contributes to the argument of nuclear energy not being as dangerous as it is often believed to be.

Besides historical examples, Pearson uses expert opinion, another form of second-hand evidence, to persuade the audience of his position on nuclear power. John McCarthy, a computer science professor at Stanford, and his studies are used to prove that "nuclear waste problem is exaggerated." The author also heavily relies on various organizations, such as U.S. Energy Information Administration and U.S. Food and Drugs Administration, to push his agendas forward. Using other experts and organizations in Pearson's argument develops his ethos - credibility - and the reader is more likely to believe in his claim, since he is not the only person who thinks that nuclear energy is not dangerous and is needed - there are others.

In the last section of the article, Pearson for the first time uses his "I". He does so in his development of "limitations" of the topic, "I've done a lot here in an attempt to defend nuclear energy, I still acknowledge it's not perfect." This "acceptance" of "non-perfectness" makes Pearson more trustworthy in the eyes of the audience - he is not just bluntly defending nuclear power and rejecting its negative effects, he agrees that it could be managed in a more efficient and "clean" way. And this is how, with the use of first and second-hand evidence, Pearson created a successful argument of fact.