Deconstructing an argument
Dec 11 2006
One of the great pleasures of living in an area like the
Blackall Range is the discourse that goes on - in the papers, in coffee bars,
via emails, in the street...
Discourse. Discussion. Argument. I'd like to look at these three
and perhaps even start a thread that looks at the way we discuss things, what we
hope to achieve and how we use arguments to get what we want.
Meantime, one of the listees took the time to analyse Max
Whitten's email.
Here are the
results.
"I note, with disappointment, the use of emphatically emotive language, and hence the lack of credibility, in Max
Whitten's letter to the CCC CEO and Councillors. Here are
extracts that would be dismissed in any test of logical argument.
=================================
Extract 1:
"There has not been a single critical comment of my analysis in the media; nor a single comment favouring Berry's
argument in the local media."
He is implying that the inverse is true; i.e. "There has been one, or more, comments favouring my analysis in the
media; and one, or more, comments critical of Berry's argument in the local media."
However, the logical extrapolation is:
"There has not been a single critical comment of Berry's argument in the media; nor a single comment favouring my
analysis in the local media."
==================================
Extract 2:
This is a derogatory emotive enhancement:
"... respond predictably to the clarion call."
where as: " ... respond predictably."
may be true, and expressed with an initial observation of credibility.
===================================
Extract 3:
This is again, derogatory and emotive exaggeration:
"Cr Newman cant even articulate an argument in support of his self- serving position as illustrated by his uninformative
email below ..."
would have some initial credibility as:
"Cr Newman has not articulated an argument in support of his position as illustrated by his email below ..." (The email
may be a statement of fact!)
===================================
Extract 4:
Misleading assumptions:
"supported by the silent majority without comment but which are sometimes criticised by a vocal minority"
How does he know this? Where are the supporting facts and research?
===================================
Extract 5:
What is a "pavlovian response"?
"Cr Newman may even drum up 100+ pavlovian responses"
Is this a credible English expression?
=====================================
Extract 6:
Excellent advice for all opinions received (including his!)
"look carefully at these to see whether they are noise or substance"
====================================
Extract 7:
What evidence supports this proposition?
"Over the past three years the interests of Maleny residents have principally been served by Councillors on the coast."
He deducts from this:
"This demonstrates that effective representation is what counts, not direct representation."
This is a known method of establishing an arguable assertion by using a false proposition, then divert the argument
away from the proposition.
TOP
| 
