Chapter 17 is all about fallacies of argument, which is something of particular interest to me because they are used all the time in politics, and practically everybody gets away with it.  You always have to take what political entities say about their competition with a grain of salt; political rhetoric is full of fallacies and intended to be divisive.  Employment of fallacy for political gain is something I consider highly unethical because it assumes the audience to be ignorant fools who will believe whatever misinformation or spin is provided.  Since most people are biased towards believing what they already feel and think is true, politicians and media outlets take advantage and intentionally steer their constituents and viewers with fallacious arguments that keep most people ignorant of the facts.  The result is this incessant name-calling and demonizing that keeps our government almost literally unable to do anything at times, and motivates psychotic people to attempt assassinations of political figures.  I'm the kind of person that values reconciliation over argumentation, so all I gotta say about this mess is "no sir, I don't like it."

Anyhow, here's a little summary of the different kinds of fallacies discussed in the reading.  I studied fallacies last semester as well, and I like how the authors of our book organized them according to the rhetorical appeals they use:

Fallacies of Pathos

Scare tactics - Striking fear into people's hearts with exaggerations and/or complete falsehoods in order to motivate some behavior or spread some belief.  If Obama succeeds in establishing peace in the Middle East, that means he is the antichrist. 

Either-or arguments - Simplifying an argument into only two possible choices or courses of action.  If you're not with us, you're against us.  If you're not part of the cure, you're part of the disease.  Support the Patriot Act or you're a terrorist.

Slippery slope - One small action or declaration will lead to some huge disaster, like an avalanche getting started by a single little snowball.  Pretty soon we'll have people marrying animals with the government forcing churches to conduct the ceremonies!

Sentimental appeals - Excessive appeals to emotion, while ignoring the hard facts.  Pretty much all news on TV does this.

The bandwagon - Everyone else is doing this, so you should too.  Why it's a fallacy:  It ignores the facts, rationale and assumptions that surround the issue.  Having a large number of people supporting an idea does not make it the best choice just because there is a large number.  A good argument provides all the facts and persuades its audience on the merits of those reasons.

Fallacies of Ethos

Appeals to false authority - Claiming something as hard evidence just because a certain person said so. 

Dogmatism - Making a claim that no other arguments regarding a topic are possible or acceptable, just because.  The tactic fails to provide any supporting evidence and is therefore a very weak argument.

Ad Hominem - Latin for "to the man," this tactic aims to discredit an argument by attacking the character of person who made it...like when people bring up Newt Gingrich's tainted personal history with his multiple marriages in attempt to discredit him as an upstanding representative of Christian American conservatism.  Despite the fallacy, the fact still remains that he is a corrupt, condescending jerk.

Fallacies of Logos

Hasty generalization - A conclusion based on limited evidence, which can cause the formation of stereotypes.  I saw some homeless people camped out at Occupy Wall Street, so the whole movement must be about bums demanding government handouts.  Get a job, stinkin hippies!

Faulty causality - The assumption that one event was caused by another event, simply because one happened before the other.  It's a fallacy when the two are really unrelated, or when the order in which things happen or the factors that cause them to happen is not correctly understood.

Begging the question - This one is hard for me to explain.  Read about it on page 529.

Equivocation - Telling a lie or half-truth through clever use of language.  An alcoholic at an AA meeting says, "I haven't had a beer in three months now."  *applause* (neglects to disclose that he switched over to hard liquor and has been sneaking sips from his flask during bathroom breaks)

Non sequitur - Latin for "it does not follow."  A conclusion that does not logically follow the claims and reasons behind an argument.  See: Tea Party.

Straw man - The tactic of spinning or rephrasing an opponent's argument into a much weaker and more ridiculous concept, and then tearing it down with a counterargument.  Politics and pundits, everywhere all the time.

Faulty analogy - Inaccurate comparisons between the present subject and other ideas or things.  Obama is a modern-day Joseph Stalin.  Let's make some memes that show how socialist he is.

Well, that's about it.  The following comic is related to my introductory paragraph.  It serves as a great example to prove my point, but whether it does so in my favor or not is up to your analysis.  

It's not what you say, but how you say it.

Chapter 13 is all about style and presentation used in rhetorical arguments.  How exciting!

Basically, styles of communication can be broken down into three main styles:  high (formal and serious), middle (clear and simple) and low (using humor and slang).  It is word choice, tone and sentence structure that identify a writer's style.  The spin or perspective that we as writers use to present our arguments reveals a lot about our beliefs, values and affiliations.

The chapter provides a lot of advice for making arguments more effective.  Regarding sentence structure, it suggests varying the length of sentences to keep the audience from getting bored.  A long sentence is introduced, containing lots of information and facts about a certain issue, then followed by a much shorter one that tops it all off with a concluding idea or a main claim to the argument.  This is just one example.

Additionally, it reminds us to use transitions between sentences and paragraphs to link the ideas and maintain a smooth flow from one statement to the next.  Varying the structure of sentences within a paragraph also help hold the audience's interest.  Although I will always question whether or not my attempts to use these strategies are effective, I try to do a decent job of keeping my writing interesting.

Punctuation is another tool writers have at their disposal to enhance their style and write better arguments.  Semicolons represent a pause that is stronger than a comma but shorter than a period; these can make a passage easier to read.  A colon, on the other hand, can be used to introduce a list of similar items.  For example, keep these other kinds of punctuation in mind when considering your rhetorical situation: pairs of dashes to highlight a word or phrase in a sentence, exclamation points and question marks to vary your tone, and ellipsis points...to indicate a pause or hesitation.

The next big section of the chapter deals with figurative language, which is divided into two main categories: tropes, which utilize changes in the normal or literal meanings of words or phrases; and schemes, which consist of unique arrangements of words.

The concept of tropes is broken down into some basic, familiar categories:

• Metaphor - equating one thing directly to another to enhance an argument.  For example, "I can't hang out with the guys because the ole ball 'n' chain keeps me tied down."
• Simile - comparing things using "like" or "as" - "My son is cute as a button." (I don't know who decided that buttons are cute, but hey, it's a figure of speech!)
• Analogy - comparing two things to show similarity - "Having kids is like living in a college dorm with messy roommates.  No matter how much effort you put into cleaning the house, they will always put twice as much into making it messy."

The less familiar (at least to me) kinds of tropes are:

• Signifying - needles the audience with indirection, ironic humor, and a surprise twist at the end.
• Hyperbole - exaggeration through colorful language to achieve a certain effect.
• Understatement - using a muted message to quietly underscore an obvious point, or to mask the serious implications of something urgent or important.
• Rhetorical questions - a question that doesn't need to be answered, but rather makes a point on its own.  So what?
• Antonomasia - a title used in substitution for a proper noun.  Herman Cain called Nancy Pelosi "Princess Nancy" in an attempt to - I don't know, show the world how much of a sexist idiot he really is?

And finally, the concept of schemes is broken down into the following categories:

• Parallelism - grammatically similar phrases - "by the people, for the people, of the people"
• Antithesis - using parallel structures to show opposite meanings or contrast "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"
• Inverted word order - anything ever said by Yoda.
• Anaphora - effective repetition to make the message flow like the beating of a drum
• Reversed structures - Switching the words in the second half of a sentence to twist the meaning in a clever way - "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

I liked the use of The Boondocks to illustrate the example of signifying, so I'm adding another one here just for fun.  What kinds of tropes can you identify?

Re: Hidden Layers

All forms of communication are capable of incorporating hidden layers of meaning into their content.  Even without knowing it, everything that we say to each other can be analyzed to reveal assumptions, underlying values, or arguments in disguise.

Hidden arguments shape reality subconsciously. 

Arguments in Disguise

 - Objectivity Disguise – This is best exemplified when news reporters relay the details of an event, but pick and choose which details to include and which to omit, in order to persuade the audience a certain way. 

 - Personal Taste Disguise – The juxtaposition of things we already like with things that others are arguing in favor for – like using sex appeal to sell literally anything.

 - Spin – Interpreting the facts of an event to one’s advantage, or to the disadvantage of one’s opponents.  See: politics.

 - Propaganda – You’ll never see this unsavory manipulation of logic and despicable appeal to negative emotion in the glorious land of the free, and home of the brave.  If you do, it's because of the communists.

Underlying Values

Arguments are strongest when they tap into the commonly accepted set of ideals considered to be “good.”  Beneath every cause or claim there should be a philosophical reason why the claim being made is a representation of those cherished values.  In America, the values of freedom, happiness, safety, wisdom, and wealth are among those which are automatically accepted as good.

Assumptions

An assumption is an idea that is taken for granted as being true, and links the claim to its support.  Sometimes the assumption is clearly stated, while at other times it can be so subtle that we aren't even aware of it as we make our arguments.  For example, here is a statement with a hidden assumption (or maybe more than one):  

Scientists have identified the combustion of fossil fuels as the cause of global warming.

The argument can then be broken down into its claim and support, which may reveal any assumptions.

Claim - Burning fossil fuels causes global warming.

Support - Scientists said so.

So then what do we assume if the argument must be true?  Scientists:

 - Have done enough research to reach a conclusive answer

 - Are educated enough to not be completely mistaken 

 - Are telling the truth (as opposed to making it up for ulterior motives...sneaky evil scientists trying to take over the world with laws combating pollution!)

Stephen Toulmin, a British philosopher, created a system for discovering hidden assumptions, also known by him as "warranting assumptions." Here are the elements in that system, along with some examples.

 - Claim - a conclusion or assertion about something

ex:  We need to wean ourselves off of all forms of fossil fuels.

 - Support - the evidence and reasoning used to persuade the audience of the claim's merits

ex:  The evidence clearly shows an unequivocal link between the industrial scale release of greenhouse gases with the resulting rise in global average temperatures.

 - Warranting Assumption - a statement that logically links the claim to the support 

ex:  Global warming has the potential to negatively impact many forms of life, especially humans.

 - Backing - support or evidence for the warranting assumption

ex:  The ecological impacts already observed in this early stage signal a bleak outlook for ecosystems in sensitive zones.

 - Modal Qualifier - places conditions on the claim to limit its scope

ex:  While this cannot be accomplished immediately, society should take steps towards achieving this goal gradually.

 - Rebuttal - a statement that refutes another claim

ex:  There is no other naturally occurring factor known to man that can adequately explain the warming at such an unprecedented rate.

 

Ethos: using character to support an argument

I wanted to focus this week’s post on what I feel is the most overlooked of the appeals in writing.  I personally had a harder time understanding this concept compared to the others.  It can also be difficult to identify the ethos appeals in the arguments of others, because they are often very subtle or implied.

The aspect of ethos in an argument represents the writer’s values, character and credibility.  For an argument to be effective, the audience must have an appreciation for the writer’s authority, integrity, motives, and intelligence.  An argument can fall flat on its face if the writer fails to demonstrate these characteristics to an appropriate level, or if something negative becomes widely known that would counteract the message in a given argument (imagine Ron Blagojevich doing a public service announcement on the importance of integrity and honesty).

How to utilize ethos in academic writings:

•  Claiming authority – the writer’s command over a subject

It’s important to impress upon your audience that you know enough information about a subject to deserve their attention.  It’s useful to relay personal experiences that connect you to the subject.  Anticipate audience need to understand who you are and what gives you the right to discuss the subject.  It also helps to write with a confident voice and use expressions of certainty rather than possibility.

•  Establishing credibility – the writer’s honesty, values, and likeability

Claiming authority on a subject is a good start to establishing credibility.  There is also an important visual aspect to effective arguments.  In text, compositions need to be arranged in a way that conveys the message clearly.  Citing references, making footnotes, and including charts and graphs when appropriate will also make one’s claim more credible.  Another method is to use humor as a means of establishing a rapport with the audience and putting them at ease.  Additionally, one can show respect for the audience by addressing the objections you would expect them to raise.  Even admitting your limitations in knowledge on a subject can help shape your credibility.

•       Coming clean about motives – whose interests are you serving?

A skeptical audience will want to know why you are arguing your position – what’s in it for you?  It’s a good idea to remember this strategy when your argument could appear to have ulterior motives or may result in benefitting yourself or some group to which you belong.  Remember to explain the reasons why you are arguing in favor of your position, and avoid the suspicions of those who otherwise might assume the worst about you.

Ethos in visual arguments

Brand names, company slogans and logos, and even clothing contain a visual argument that represents the positive characteristics of the entity being referenced.  A truck with a Ford symbol on it can be trusted to have been “built Ford tough.”  A bicycle with a name like Cannondale or Giant printed on its frame will be assumed to be more valuable than one that says “Mongoose.”  And when you see someone with an employee uniform at the ASU bookstore, you know you they are probably reliable enough to tell you where to find the graphing calculators. 

I wanted to show this self-portrait of a famous painter named Albrecht Durer, which I recently learned about in my art history class. 

Look closely at the signature below the windowsill.

  

The posturing and elegant clothing are intended to impress upon the audience the class and style that this man saw himself as having.  But what I actually wanted to point out was the little monogram that he created out of his initials:

He placed this mark on many, if not all, of his works.  It’s almost as if he intended to create a brand name for himself.  Anyone familiar with the name would see this symbol, and view the work of art with an appreciation not only for the art itself, but also for the reputation of the artist.  The symbol represents Durer's values for precision and quality, and reminds the audience of his authority over the subject of painting.

Re: Visual Arguments

Visual arguments are ubiquitous in this modern day life inundated with product placements, commercial advertising and entertainment.  Images have the power to evoke a full range of human emotions and responses, and the use of images to develop an argument is a tool used by many people for many different purposes.  Politicians attempt to portray themselves as determined, reliable leaders through the use of professional attire, strong body language, and confident countenances in order to win elections.  Patriotic imagery is used to evoke a sense of nationalism and unity in the midst of disaster and strife.  Companies who hope to sell a product use imagery to make it seem as appealing as possible, and associate their goods with well-known people, in order to make use of their popularity.  Additionally, all manner of individuals and charitable organizations use visual arguments to promote their causes by evoking emotional responses and generating general awareness.  These are just a few ways in which visual arguments are employed.

One method of visual argument of particular interest to me is the use of comics and cartoonish imagery for the purposes of satire and social commentary.  They can shed a humorous light on otherwise serious topics, and reveal the ridiculousness of today's issues.  Sometimes, it's nice to just have a little levity to offset all the negativity and partisanship.

Here's an example:



Here we see a Somali pirate sitting in a tiny desert hideout, listening to the radio.  (For some reason, this one likes to wear sunglasses at night.  Maybe the only radio station they get is 80s pop.)  Next to him, somebody has been whisked away rather abruptly, leaving behind a pair of sandals and can of soda.  In the distance under the light of the moon a helicopter hovers, with a pair of Navy Seals (or maybe the individuals who were rescued) dangling from ropes.  Thus, this comic is celebrating the raid which occurred under cover of darkness and successfully freed two aid workers, and giving President Obama as well as the Navy Seals credit.  Interestingly enough, this raid was carried out just before the president's State of the Union address.  Intentional or not, the timing seems to be in his favor and may help to boost his popularity and approval ratings.

More details on the raid can be found here:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/SEALs-snatch-captives-from-Somali-pirates-2712858.php

Finally, here is an image that can be said to represent a different kind of argument:

And that argument is...kids are cute.

WP1 topics


Oh yes, by the way...I do have a plan for WP1.  Part one will involve analysis of a visual argument presented by a corporation attempting to redeem itself after a massively embarrassing public failure.  Part two will consist of putting a twist on a classic conflict in the video game realm, and drawing parallels to the lesser-known side a real-life conflict that has been ongoing for centuries that I think more people should know about.  I don't want to give away the specifics just yet ;)

Introduction

Hi. My name is Matt. 

My wife is Genevieve and we have a 2 year old son named Nikolai. 

Before coming to ASU, I was an Arabic linguist in the Air Force for eight years.  My wife used to be in the service as well; that’s how we met.  I’m from Colorado and she is from various places along the East coast.  Her family currently lives in upstate New York.

In addition to my studies in civil and environmental engineering, I also work part-time as a freelance translator – trying to put those years of language experience to good use while in school.  My wife is also a student at ASU, pursuing a degree in anthropology.  We both transferred our credits from our associate degrees that we earned while in the service.  Since they were mostly liberal arts credits, they transferred well into her degree program, and she’s a junior.  I, on the other hand, did not pick such a transferable major.  I’m still considered a freshman in my degree program since language and area studies credits don’t apply very well to an engineering degree.

So why did I pick civil and environmental engineering when hardly any of my credits transferred?  Well, I wanted to choose something completely different from language studies because I was bored with it.  Plus, there’s not that much demand for it in the jobs market and there is virtually no innovation.  I wanted to pick something that was different yet challenging – something that had a strong demand, something I could do almost anywhere, and something that pays well.  Civil/environmental engineering looked like a good match, so I went with it. 

Why choose ASU when neither of us is from Arizona?  Well, that’s something that requires a bit more explanation.  See, when I left the Air Force at the end of 2010, we were living in California near the Defense Language Institute in Monterey where I had worked as a language instructor.  I wasn’t sure exactly what I was going to do next, whether it would be searching for a job or going back to school or anything in between.  Genevieve happens to have a friend named Fran (also a veteran) who moved to this area because her husband got a job as an enrollment counselor at the University of Phoenix.  Fran convinced Genevieve that moving out here to be friends and neighbors would be just the best thing ever.  Since I didn’t have any prospects at the time, I went along with the idea.  The promise of free childcare being provided by Fran, a mother of two girls slightly older than our son, sounded pretty great.  It soon became clear to me that going back to school was a better option than looking for a new job since my skills in language are not really useful at all, outside of the translation world.  I'm too old to start at the bottom of the ladder at a dead-end job, so here I am.  

The First Blog

It is done.