Irrational Techniques of Persuasion

1
Chapter 14

• Irrational Techniques of Persuasion

2
Irrational Techniques of Persuasion

• There are several techniques employed that may be
  persuasive in getting someone to accept the
  conclusion of an argument, but are often
  irrationally employed.
• They are irrational because one accepts the
  conclusion not because of reasons, but for some
  other reason (e.g., emotion).

3
Loaded Terms

• Loaded terms are terms which contain both a
  descriptive and evaluative meaning (we saw the
  difference between these types of uses of
  language in Ch. 2).
• Sometimes these words can be used to smuggle in
  an evaluation, when it appears, on the surface,
  that someone or something is being described.

4
Loaded Terms

• E.g.
• terrorist
• freedom fighter
• Is Osama bib Laden a terrorist? Freedom fighter?
• Michael Collins? Che Guevara?

5
Vague Terms

• Remember the distinction between ambiguity and
  vagueness (Ch. 2).
• Ambiguous terms are those that have two or more
  possible interpretations, and it is not clear
  which one is intended.
• Vague terms are those which are imprecise, but
  the intended meaning is clear.

6
Vague Terms

• The use of ambiguous terms is always fallacious.
• The use of vague terms is only fallacious when
  precision is called for (sometimes it is not).
• In particular, the use of vague terms is
  fallacious when it is used to persuade you of
  something that is false.

7
Vague Terms

• The use of vague terms is particularly evident in
  advertising.
• In particular, this is evident in the use of
  metaphorical words or phrases.

8
Loaded Questions

• Although arguments are composed of statements
  (sentences which are capable of being true or
  false), questions are sometimes used when arguing
  with another person.
• The answers to these questions (which themselves
  are statements) can then be used as premises.

9
Loaded Questions

• There are certain questions that one ought to be
  aware of complex questions.
• A complex question contains an assumption that
  any answer to the question will confirm.
• The classis example is
• Have you stopped beating your wife?

10
Loaded Questions

• No matter how you answer a complex question, you
  tacitly concede the assumption. (i.e., youre
  damned if you do, damned if you dont)
• In order to respond to complex questions, you can
  either
• Refuse to answer the question
• Ask that the question be rephrased without the
  assumption

11
Loaded Questions

• Accusations can also be turned into questions.
• Instead of accusing someone of, e.g., of
  plagiarizing, you can ask Did you plagiarize?
• These accusative questions are particularly
  effective when the question is asked publicly.

12
False Confidence

• Presenting a claim with confidence is a way in
  which someone may be convinced of the truth of
  that claim even if the evidence (or premises) do
  not support it with the same amount of
  confidence.
• If a claim is presented confidently, then it may
  not be called into question by ones opponent.

13
False Confidence

• False confidence differs from a lie in that the
  person putting forward the claim believes it.
  Liars dont believe what they say.
• A person who is falsely confident believes the
  claim, but is lying about the confidence one
  should have in the evidence that would reasonably
  lead one to believe that claim.

14
False Confidence

• E.g.
• Mongolian peasants use a method of predicting the
  sex of unborn children that is accurate more than
  95 per cent of the time. On a night when there
  is a full moon, the father spits into a cup of
  the mothers urine and leaves it on the doorstep
  of their hut overnight. If the spit is still
  floating the next morning, the baby will be a boy.

15
Selectivity

• Selectivity occurs when information that detracts
  from your conclusion is omitted from the
  argument.
• In these cases, no lies are told, as the failure
  to include evidence contrary to your view is not
  a lie. Nevertheless, deceit occurs here.

16
Selectivity

• This sort of deceit can be used quite effectively
  with inductive arguments.
• Induction by confirmation can succumb to this
  fallacy quite easily.

17
Red Herring

• To introduce a red herring is to attempt to shift
  criticism from our own argument to another topic
  that distracts from the original criticism.
• P. 293 (text)

18
Guilt By Association

• This argument is an analogical argument.
• It suggests a similarity between the opponent
  (subject) and another group (analogue), and
  infers that because the analogue group has a
  particular feature, the subject must have that
  feature as well.
• This is regarded as an irrational method because
  there is usually almost no (relevant) similarity
  between the two cases.

19
Guilt By Association

• E.g., p. 295

20
Self-Test No. 21

• p. 296