THE DEAN'S MUSING
In a society in which citizens participate in a system of self-governance, two important skills contribute the the health of that society. First, citizens must be able to discern the realities they face, critically analyzing the complex forces that affect their lives. To put it more simply, they must be able to uncover "the Truth." Maryville College's commitment to the liberal arts--critical thinking--grows out of Isaac Anderson's understanding (like Thomas Jefferson) that an educated citizenry is essential for democracy. This has become an accepted axiom.
The second skill is sometimes overlooked. Because the Truth is complicated and constantly debated, we must be able to persuade others of positions that we hold. Particularly during election years, we see campaigners use a variety of methods to persuade the electorate of superiority of this or that candidate. Even beyond political campaigns, commentators and bloggers continually attempt to persuade audiences, readers, and anyone that will listen to believe the positions they hold--or, it seems, to dissuade those audiences of an alternative point of view.
In the latter case, I observe the greatest number of logical fallacies or simple non sequiturs. The three most common fallacies are (1) red herring, (2) straw man, and (3) ad hominem. A "red herring" argument involves speaking to an issue other than the one in quesiton. For example, if one raises the issue of capital punishment in a discussion about abortion, that is a red herring. A "straw man" argument attempts to state the other point of view in such a negative way that most people would be repulsed by it. "The other side wants to control the stray cat population by putting kittens in a sack and throwing them in a pond." An "ad hominem" attack ignores the issue altogether and simply attacks the person, which usually involve calling the opponent names.
Often these fallacies are combined. Some group is labelled with an emotionally loaded epithet ("socialist," "Nazi") or a broad category that carries stereotypes ("liberal," "conservative"). Sometimes the label carries its own powerful baggage, so that one doesn't need to add anything. Sometimes the audience is told what to think about the label. "They [fill in the opposition--"liberals" or "consertives"] believe that [fill in some heinous belief--"rich people should be lynched" or "poor babies should be eaten"]. Once that is established, then an individual may be associate with the evil group, and he or she is discredited.
Sadly I have read far too many columnists and heard too many commentators that rely on this lazy style of "persuasion." Rather than performing the hard work of gathering evidence, critically analyzing the data, establishing the logical steps that lead to sound and valid conclusions, they resort to calling others names--the rhetorical equivalent of "Oh yeah, well you're just an old doo-doo head." No group or individual is immune to the temptation to take this easy way, but if our society is to meet the complicated challenges of the future, we must eschew such shortcuts.
Do you believe strongly in a certain position? Great! Form your argument carefully. Persuade me with your evidence and logic, and we will both be wiser.
The second skill is sometimes overlooked. Because the Truth is complicated and constantly debated, we must be able to persuade others of positions that we hold. Particularly during election years, we see campaigners use a variety of methods to persuade the electorate of superiority of this or that candidate. Even beyond political campaigns, commentators and bloggers continually attempt to persuade audiences, readers, and anyone that will listen to believe the positions they hold--or, it seems, to dissuade those audiences of an alternative point of view.
In the latter case, I observe the greatest number of logical fallacies or simple non sequiturs. The three most common fallacies are (1) red herring, (2) straw man, and (3) ad hominem. A "red herring" argument involves speaking to an issue other than the one in quesiton. For example, if one raises the issue of capital punishment in a discussion about abortion, that is a red herring. A "straw man" argument attempts to state the other point of view in such a negative way that most people would be repulsed by it. "The other side wants to control the stray cat population by putting kittens in a sack and throwing them in a pond." An "ad hominem" attack ignores the issue altogether and simply attacks the person, which usually involve calling the opponent names.
Often these fallacies are combined. Some group is labelled with an emotionally loaded epithet ("socialist," "Nazi") or a broad category that carries stereotypes ("liberal," "conservative"). Sometimes the label carries its own powerful baggage, so that one doesn't need to add anything. Sometimes the audience is told what to think about the label. "They [fill in the opposition--"liberals" or "consertives"] believe that [fill in some heinous belief--"rich people should be lynched" or "poor babies should be eaten"]. Once that is established, then an individual may be associate with the evil group, and he or she is discredited.
Sadly I have read far too many columnists and heard too many commentators that rely on this lazy style of "persuasion." Rather than performing the hard work of gathering evidence, critically analyzing the data, establishing the logical steps that lead to sound and valid conclusions, they resort to calling others names--the rhetorical equivalent of "Oh yeah, well you're just an old doo-doo head." No group or individual is immune to the temptation to take this easy way, but if our society is to meet the complicated challenges of the future, we must eschew such shortcuts.
Do you believe strongly in a certain position? Great! Form your argument carefully. Persuade me with your evidence and logic, and we will both be wiser.
Jeff Fager
Vice President and Dean of the College
Vice President and Dean of the College
