In chapter 11 Epstein discusses what violating the principle of rational disscussion means. He says that it is when someone does not understand rational arguement or they are purposly trying to mislead. Here are some fallacies.
Begging the question: In an arguement you must prove that the claim you make is true so the premises of an arguemnet have to be stronger than the ending of it.
Strawman: Put words in your opponents mouth to misrepresent it because it's easier to make their arguement look bad.
Shifting the Burden: Make your opposition prove your claims wrong rather than prove them yourself.
Relevancy: It's not a fallacy but rather an observation that the claim being made is weak and you can't repair it.
Slanters, concealing bad claims by using misleading language and Ridicule, making someone the butt of the joke are also violations.
An example is when a politicians argue for elections they often put words in eachothers mouths and make claims their opponent has to disprove. They also use slanters very often; as well as ridicule each other.
I enjoyed reading your explanation on Violating the principle of rational discussion because it was easy to understand. This was easy for me because you included in your post the definitions that applied to the subject that you were trying to explain. I also liked the example you used to talk about in your post about the politicians. This was a very rational example because you included some of the definitions in your example and explained it very well. Thank you for explaining this in a way so that i can understand without having to think very hard about the idea.
ReplyDelete