Day 2, Of Fallacies and Irony

I am halfway through my second day of class. An attentive reader will notice that the date reflects a greater passage of time—two weeks to be precise. This is due to the Martin Luther King holiday and since this class meets once per week for three hours at a crack, I got a week off. The Reverend King certainly deserves thoughtful remembrance (the “thoughtful” part being in short supply these days) and students, bankers, and certain government workers benefit in a less cerebral manner of respite, but benefit we do.

With today’s class we launch again into the worlds of argumentation and rhetoric. “Launch” is rather an overstatement. It’s more like we skip as a stone skips across the surface. The reading assignment due for today (26 odd pages) took all of two hours. The subsequent quiz given at the beginning of class today had two questions that were merely definitional and easily dispatched from the first page of each chapter—yet still the quiz was met with furtive groans from the majority of the class. Ah, the challenges that will face them in the workplace if they think that this is hard!

We have spent quite a bit of time discussing rhetoric, logic, and the fallacies. A brief time was spent on the use of words and symbols to avoid ambiguity. Irony ensued when the professor (again, a bright and likable fellow) forgot the meaning of the symbols he wrote and could not reconstruct the logic in his logic statement because…well, he was not sure what they meant. Irony defined.

Back to the studies.

As the title and subtitle of this blog suggests, I am attempting to record my journey through the ostensibly liberal-dominated world of academia. The last post suggested that I was in fertile territory for such and today added evidence. We are studying the Formal and Informal Fallacies—this is wholly correct and appropriate for a course in advanced argumentation. However, the examples used by the professor to demonstrate the fallacies are rather telling.

To demonstrate the fallacy Argumentum ad Hominem - Circumstantial (personal benefit unrelated to the conclusion) the professor cited the following phrase:
“Lowering taxes is good for the economy because you will have more money!”

To demonstrate the fallacy Argumentum ad Populem (popular believe is unrelated to truth)he said:
“90% of people believe in some form of a higher power so therefore there is a God.”

To demonstrate Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion) he said:
“Condi (Dr.) Rice said that we could not wait for a ‘smoking gun’ to invade Iraq because the smoking gun would be a ‘mushroom cloud.’”

(I focus on the use of Liberal position statements rather than the obvious points that this combines two different statements by two different people—neither of them Condi Rice—and takes them out of context, thus committing formal fallacies of fact.)

But to demonstrate the Ambiguity Fallacy of Accent, he predicted that the opposition would emphasize the middle name of one current presidential candidate to create an unfair impression of the man:
“Barak HUSSEIN Obama”

Although the professor certainly may have additional, more even-handed examples at his disposal, these were the only ones discussed. I also should say that their Liberal bent does not necessarily make them incorrect or un-useful examples of the related fallacies (in the logic statement sense). But their selection and use in conjunction with the topic at hand is certainly slighted.

It is a further irony that the professor fails to realize that he is creating the fallacy of bringing his bias to the table in the discussion of fallacy

Until next week,

Later in the Evening, Day One

9:30 PM

Well…in the first session of my first class I have been instructed that Truth is relative and that America has failed at democracy. If there is such a thing a liberal bias test, so far we have failed it. As evidence I offer a paraphrase of a brief conversation I had with the professor at the break:

Me, “Professor, should we assume then that you lean toward subjectivism?”

Prof., “Well you should never assume, that is what gets you in trouble. And it depends on what you mean by ‘lean’ and ‘subjective,’ doesn’t it.”

Me, “Subjective infers that you do not believe in absolute truth—that truth if relative to place, time, and circumstance.”

Prof., “Well then…yes.”

The professor is amiable enough and obviously bright, if significantly eccentric and prone to ad hominem digression. I find those qualities tolerable. But it remains to be seen if I and my obviously contrary viewpoint will get the fair shake I felt denied two decades ago.

Class One, Day One, Before the Begining

6:15 PM, January 14, 2008

Well, today is my first day of class. I will return at a later date to talk about my efforts to actually re-enter Arizona State University after so long a departure. But I will foreshadow that blog a bit by simply saying that it was harder to get back into ASU than it was to get in the first time.

My first class starts in about 15 minutes and I must admit that I approach my return to University with a bunch of preconceptions and my fair share of biases. Most of those biases have to deal with the quality of the education I am to receive and expected biases I anticipate encountering. It is those biases that have prompted me to start this blog. Thus to document my thoughts as I experience them. It is worth stating that my fears were not assuaged by the selections of courses open to my chosen degree field (Communications)—most notable those of the “gender awareness” and “women’s studies” variety.

But I will give the college the benefit of my open mind. So here we go on this grand adventure. Stay tuned.