[Vision2020] Fwd: Award Well-Deserved

[Joe Campbell]

No.

You should never use fallacies as you are using them: as proof of
fallacious reasoning. Most fallacies are, from a logical point of
view, very close to sound arguments. False dilemmas, for instance, fit
the form of disjunctive syllogism: A or B; not-A, so B. All instances
of begging the question are technically valid. Appeals to
non-authorities is fallacious but not appeals to genuine experts, yet
both have the same logical form.

Thus, you can't just say "appeal to emotion" therefore it commits the
fallacy of appeal to emotion. I am very emotional. It would be unwise
to think I can't reason well.

The real point is that an appeal to emotion adds nothing to the
strength or weakness of an argument. Certainly you admit that it adds
nothing to the strength! But how can it ADD to the weakness of an
argument, make the conclusion LESS probable given the premises? It
can't.

That something fits the form of a fallacy is prima facie evidence that
something fishy is going on. But sorry the logic of the real world
doesn't come on a silver platter. You can't use superficial
indications of fallacies to judge that an argument is actually
fallacious. You have to do the dirty work and check it out case by
case, e.g., do some logic.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Award Well-Deserved
To: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>


Joe,

You are incorrect. You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Emotional appeal is relevant when it comes to persuading an audience
of the general public. If it wasn't advertisers wouldn't use it, and
celebrities wouldn't be paid millions to endorse products. If the
general public was completely logical, only then would you be right
that emotional appeal isn't relevant.

As far as logic goes, no, emotional appeal doesn't withstand its own
weight. I agree.

The degree is the emotional unappealing element of the argument. The
morality of the professions and the law breaking is very different.
The truck drivers were following their orders within the law. The
Nazis were not following orders within the law. If truck drivers were
drunk, running over people, hitting other cars, and running wildly
over the speed limit, and then claimed to be following orders to get
it there as fast as possible, there would be a more relevant argument.
The professional drivers followed, local, state, federal, and
international laws while doing their jobs. Nazis did not. They were
unprofessional in the performance of their duties as soldiers and
knowingly so. That is the fault line in your logical argument, your
premise is completely wrong and it turns the argument into one less
appealing to an otherwise willing and sympathetic ear.

Donovan Arnold



From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:26 PM

Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Award Well-Deserved

Again, you are wrong. The emotional appeal carries no weight and makes
NO difference. What matters is the example provides a counterexample
to the validity of this inference:

I did it because the boss told me to do it; therefore I'm not
blameworthy for doing it.

That inference is invalid. Nazi guards serve as an example
illustrating this fact. Consider:

Nazi Guard X says: "I did it because the boss told me to do it;
therefore I'm not blameworthy for doing it."

This is pretty clearly a bad argument. Arguments are good or bad (in
this sense, in terms of their inferential strength) generally
speaking. Thus, if the argument is invalid in one context, it is
invalid in all contexts. That it is carries an emotional appeal is
IRRELEVANT. Clearly it doesn't increase the strength of the point. Nor
does it decrease the strength of the point. It is IRRELEVANT. Joe

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Donovan Arnold
<donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Joe,
>
> I agree with your technological analysis of logical reasoning in which you
> are addressing and are able to exercise considerable expertise, just not the
> emotional appeal attempted by the writer, which is not the logical.
> Arguments that are logical are not always persuasive, and ones that are not
> sometimes are--as you well know. The Nazi analogy makes an otherwise good
> argument go flat, not because of flawed logical reasoning, but because it is
> emotionally repelling, intellectually unimaginative and lacking originality.
> Nazi comparisons are cliche and overly dramatize a situation beyond its
> station.

>
> Donovan Arnold
>
> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>; Aaron Ament <aaronament at moscow.com>;
> JimPrall <bermanprall at gmail.com>; Lois Blackburn <loisb at q.com>; Kathy Judson
> <ponysnpups at gmail.com>; BorgHendrickson <chicory at wildblue.net>; Friends
> oftheClearwater <foc at friendsoftheclearwater.org>; Moscow Vision 2020
> <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Jeanne McHale <jeannemchale at hotmail.com>;
> FritzKnorr <fritzknorr at gmail.com>; Brett Haverstick <bhaverstick at yahoo.com>;

> Marilyn Beckett <marilynbeckett at gmail.com>; CherylHalverson
> <basketmakeart at yahoo.com>; Linwood Laughy <lin at wildblue.net>; HelenYost
> <helen.yost at vandals.uidaho.edu>; Dr. Dinah Zeiger <dzeiger at uidaho.edu>
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:42 PM

>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Award Well-Deserved
>
> That is irrelevant wrt the issue of validity, whether an inference is valid.
> But don't trust me. I've only been teaching logic for almost 30 years.
>
>
>
> On Apr 27, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> True, Joe, but a poor one at that. Comparing an ant hill to Mt. Olympus.

>
> Donovan Arnold
>
> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>; Aaron Ament <aaronament at moscow.com>;

> Jim Prall <bermanprall at gmail.com>; Lois Blackburn <loisb at q.com>; Kathy
> Judson <ponysnpups at gmail.com>; BorgHendrickson <chicory at wildblue.net>;

> Friends ofthe Clearwater <foc at friendsoftheclearwater.org>; Moscow Vision
> 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Jeanne McHale <jeannemchale at hotmail.com>;

> Fritz Knorr <fritzknorr at gmail.com>; Brett Haverstick
> <bhaverstick at yahoo.com>; Marilyn Beckett <marilynbeckett at gmail.com>;
> CherylHalverson <basketmakeart at yahoo.com>; Linwood Laughy
> <lin at wildblue.net>; HelenYost <helen.yost at vandals.uidaho.edu>; Dr. Dinah
> Zeiger <dzeiger at uidaho.edu>
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:20 PM

> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Award Well-Deserved
>
> It is not a comparison. It is a counterexample to an inference.
>
>
>
> On Apr 27, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> I am aware of the remark's origin, Mr. Hansen, as is the entire educated
> world. And it no less weakens the argument because it is a poor comparison.
>
> Claiming the excuse, "I need to feed my family" from someone driving a truck
> to Canada to ship oil, a needed product, is not the same as claiming, "I
> need to feed my family" from someone who helped slaughter millions of
> innocent lives against international law and basic human morality. One is
> far more legitimate than the other. Truck drivers are little more guilty of
> destroying the earth than you or me for the oil we demand by driving our
> cars and polluting the Earth. Someday, truck drivers are going to park and
> people will cry out for them as they run out of everything and anything they
> need from apples to toilet paper to removal of their own trash.
>
> Those that use the Nazi comparison weaken their argument. It cheapens the
> lives that were lost in that great atrocity, nothing compares to it in
> modern history. It also shows a lack of creativity in comparison and visual
> illustration when the Nazi comparison is made. It is way over used.
> Certainly, there are other ways of making a point clear without bringing up
> Nazis all the time.
>
> The focus should not be the construction flaggers, truck drivers, the
> mechanics that put the tires on the trucks, the police, the gas station
> attendant that let the truck driver fuel this truck or the trees and wind
> for not blocking their path. It should be on those in political office that
> allowed the megaloads up 95 and into Canada and corporations that yield
> considerable power and influence over those politicians.
>
> Attacking the powerless for the actions of the powerful is a fruitless
> venture.
>
> Donovan Arnold

>
> From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
> To: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> Cc: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; Aaron Ament
> <aaronament at moscow.com>; Jim Prall <bermanprall at gmail.com>; Lois Blackburn

> <loisb at q.com>; Kathy Judson <ponysnpups at gmail.com>; Borg Hendrickson
> <chicory at wildblue.net>; Friends ofthe Clearwater
> <foc at friendsoftheclearwater.org>; Moscow Vision 2020
> <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Jeanne McHale <jeannemchale at hotmail.com>; Fritz

> Knorr <fritzknorr at gmail.com>; Brett Haverstick <bhaverstick at yahoo.com>;
> Marilyn Beckett <marilynbeckett at gmail.com>; CherylHalverson
> <basketmakeart at yahoo.com>; Linwood Laughy <lin at wildblue.net>; HelenYost
> <helen.yost at vandals.uidaho.edu>; Dr. Dinah Zeiger <dzeiger at uidaho.edu>
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 9:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Award Well-Deserved
>
> Mr. Arnold -
>
> Basic Logic 101
>
> "it was just my job" = "I was just following orders"
>
> The quote on the left was the repeated response, given by management (as
> well as drivers), to the question "Why?" repeatedly during the past year or
> so, as the megaloads marauded their way up US95.
>
> The quote on the right was the repeated response to the question "Why?"
> repeatedly during the Nurnberg trials, by those defendants charged with
> crimes against humanity.
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow.
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "If not us, who?
> If not now, when?"
>
> - Unknown
>
>
>
> On Apr 27, 2012, at 8:44, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "it was just my job"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>