Citations & References:"Why Argument is different from Opinion?" Swara started a talk with a question when she came, after greeting with Basmalah and Salaam."Many people have difficulty understanding the difference between an argument and the expression of a personal belief or opinion. They use the words 'argument' and 'opinion' interchangeably. Sometimes, when you ask others for an argument for their belief or position on an issue, they will give you their opinion about that issue rather than an argument. In other words, they simply tell you what they believe.An argument is a group of statements, one or more of which, the premises, support or provide evidence for another, the conclusion. The premises of an argument are those statements that together constitute the reasons for believing the conclusion to be true. Some premises are conclusions of previous arguments, while others may be statements of fact, personal observations, expert testimony, or expressions of common knowledge. Premises may also be found in the form of definitions, principles, or rules, which, together with other premises, are used in an attempt to support the truth of the conclusion.An argument is aimed at the goal of demonstrating the truth or falsity of a particular claim by presenting evidence that may persuade others to accept that claim. If a claim or position is being asserted in a piece of written or spoken material and no other explicit or implicit statement is used to support it, then the material in question is not an argument. It may express an opinion or take a position on an issue, but it is not an argument unless that opinion or position is defended with at least one other piece of evidence or statement of support.An argument is constituted by two or more explicit and/or implicit claims, one or more of which supports or provides evidence for the truth or merit of another claim, the conclusion.One of the most difficult tasks in evaluating arguments is that of identifying which of several statements in a piece of argumentative writing or discourse is the conclusion. The conclusion of an argument should not be confused with the main point in the material being examined. Most editorials and letters to the editor, for example, have a point to make, but many of them are not arguments. If no reasons are given for the position taken, there is nothing to conclude. The letter or editorial, in such a case, is simply a series of unsupported claims or points. The conclusion of an argument should be the statement or claim that has at least one other statement in support of it. If you are uncertain about whether there is a conclusion lurking about, look for a statement that seems to give some reason to believe that some other statement in the material is true. That other statement is likely to be the conclusion.Sometimes, but not usually, conclusions follow words like 'therefore,' 'consequently,' 'hence,' 'so,' 'then,' or 'it follows that.' Sometimes, but not usually, premises follow words like 'since,' 'because,' 'if' or 'assuming that.' In real-life arguments, however, the parts of the argument are not so easily identified. One is usually called upon to interpret the structure of the argument without the help of these identifiers.In some arguments, there may be several statements, each of which is supported by others. These other supported statements may be the argument’s premises, which may themselves be seen as conclusions supported by so-called subpremises. To determine which supported statement is not a premise but the conclusion of the main argument, try to determine which supported statement also seems to be the primary thesis being defended in the passage. It is possible, of course, and is very often the case, that more than one argument is being presented, particularly in speeches and informal discussions. If you suspect there are multiple arguments in the passage, try to guide the discussion so that it deals with one argument at a time.A belief should be the conclusion of an argument. The very word 'conclusion' suggests that it is an opinion or judgment resulting from some process of rational reflection on the evidence. While it is true that all of our claims are opinions, the important question is whether our opinions are supported or unsupported. An argument is a supported opinion. When one criticize an argument by saying of its conclusion something like, 'Well, that’s just his or her opinion,' I remind them that an opinion expressed as the conclusion of an argument is not 'just an opinion'; it is a supported opinion, and any criticism of that opinion should be aimed at the quality of the argument supporting it.The expression of personal opinion is one of the most common forms of verbal exchange, and since reasons for our opinions are often not requested, we are unaccustomed to defending them and are even lulled into thinking that reasons are not required. 'Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion,' it is often said. This is true, but the question here is not whether one has the right to express an opinion; it is a question of which opinions deserve our acceptance. If an opinion is not accompanied by reasons to support it, it is not possible to determine whether it merits our acceptance.Most of us enjoy exchanging our opinions with others, but rarely do our opinions change unless arguments for another position are presented. And there is reason to believe that some of our opinions need to change, because some of them conflict with each other and therefore cannot all be true. Since some of our opinions also conflict with the opinions of others, we know that some of us are now holding false opinions; for if there are two opposing or different opinions about some matter, at least one of them is false. But which is it? That question can be answered only by evaluating the quality of the argument presented on behalf of each view.No argument, however, may be regarded as permanently successful. There is always the possibility that new evidence will come to light that will raise new doubts about a position held on what were thought to be good grounds. Under these conditions, further examination is always appropriate. Pride in holding a position defended by a good argument in the past should not become an obstacle to reopening the issue in the present if conditions warrant it. The principles of fallibility and truth-seeking are as important at this point as they were in the original inquiry.There is a very clear difference between an argument and a good argument. A person who makes a claim that is supported by at least one other claim has created an argument, but it may not be a very good one. There are five criteria of a good argument. It must have: a well-formed structure, premises that are relevant to the truth of the conclusion, premises that are acceptable to a reasonable person, premises that together constitute sufficient grounds for the truth of the conclusion, and premises that provide an effective rebuttal to all anticipated criticisms of the argument.A fallacy is a violation of one of the criteria of a good argument. Fallacies, then, stem from one or more of the following:
- A structural flaw in the argument
- A premise that is irrelevant to the conclusion
- A premise that fails to meets the standards of acceptability
- A set of premises that together are insufficient to establish the argument’s conclusion
- A failure to give an effective rebuttal to the anticipated criticisms of the argument
- Any argument that fails to satisfy one or more of these criteria is a fallacious one. A fallacy is a mistake in an argument that violates one or more of the five criteria of a good argument, but it may violate a criterion in a number of different ways, all of which share some common features with other violations of that same criterion.
The original Greek idea of a fallacy, found in Aristotle's practical manual on the art of argumentation, the De sophisticis elenchis (On Sophistical Refutations), viewed a fallacy (or sophistical refutation) as a deliberate deceptive tactic of argumentation used to trick and get the best of a speech partner in dialogue unfairly. But this idea afterward fell into disuse and along with it the background framework of practical logic as a dialectical art of conversation between two parties who reason together. In its place, Aristotle's syllogistic logic, and with it the idea of deductive logic as a system for testing inferences for validity, took over as the dominant point of view in logic. The view of fallacy that evolved into the modern logic textbooks took on this dominant point of view, seeing a fallacy as an erroneous inferencea kind of error of reasoning that was a faulty inference from a premise to a conclusion. This viewpoint abstracted away the concept of argument as an exchange in dialogue between two parties.According to the new theory, a fallacy is—first and foremost—an argumentation scheme used wrongly. The types of arguments corresponding to the traditional so-called fallacies have underlying argumentation schemes. If an argument of one of these types is advanced in the format of the appropriate type of dialogue and is backed up sufficiently in that context by the support of its distinctive premises, it can be a reasonable argument as used in that context of dialogue. To say that such an argument is reasonable, however, is not generally to say only that it has a certain structure of constants and variables in its premises and conclusion similar to that which one finds in a deductively valid argument. Instead, it is to say that the argument is a sequence of argumentation that contributes to the realization of a proper goal of dialogue for the context in which it was advanced.The idea of fallacy arises through the possibility that argumentation schemes and themes can be used wrongly, as calculated mechanisms of preventing appropriate critical questions from arising at all, by impeding the dialogue in certain characteristic ways. This new concept of a fallacy is premised on argumentation schemes that are inherently presumptive in nature, that is, that come into play as arguments where knowledge is insufficient to derive a conclusion with certainty or even with probability. Such cases of balance-of-considerations argumentation are settled on the basis of burden of proof in a dialogue. Traditionally, however, the reputation of this type of argumentation for subjectivity has led mainstream logic to be very suspicious of it as a respectable kind of reasoning at all. But this suspicion must be dealt with, and overcome, if we are to have a logical theory useful for identifying, analyzing, and evaluating fallacies."Swara silenced for a moment, then she said, "One day, Frog and Toad were watching tv. But everytime Toad was switching the channel, he exclaimed, 'That's the Father of Identity,'; 'That's Governour Pharaoh'—even if Pharaoh would objected because he was equated with the Governor while he was a king; 'That's American's Golden Boy'; and so on. Frog was curioused and said, 'Who told you that?' While kept on watching happily, Toad replied, 'They told me so!'And when the tv showed someone Toad adored so much, Frog exclaimed, "That's 'China's Rotten Boy!' Instantly, Toad's face scowled. Frog said, 'Frog, don't sulk, I'm just talking like what you're saying.' Frog said, 'How could you say like that, who told you?' Frog replied, 'They told me so!' Still cranky, Toad nodded.'Toad listen!' said Frog, then Toad turned to him. 'Have you ever engaged in an argument where the person opposite you tries to present their position through a series of statements that didn't relate to the actual discussion? Or perhaps they tried to scare you into agreeing with their stance on the subject, rather than using a logical argument?''I don't understand, tell me, please!' replied Toad. Frog said, 'These are types of rhetorical fallacies, and they feel so frustrating because they are rooted in faulty reasoning and often deceptive intentions.The word 'fallacy' comes from the Latin word 'fallere,' which means 'to deceive.' The word transformed in the late 15th century with Middle English to 'fallacia,' which means 'deception and guile.'Rhetological Fallacies are errors and manipulations of Rhetoric and Logical Thinking. There are hundreds of different types of rhetorical fallacies. While there isn’t necessarily one that is used more often than others, many rhetorical fallacies are logical fallacies. Logic is an effective way to lead someone to agreeing with you about something, and so people frequently misuse logic in their arguments.Good communicators know certainly how to avoid logical fallacies. Logical fallacies weaken an argument by treating a false assumption as fact, but because many speakers and writers don’t take the time to consider the basis of their arguments, logical fallacies are fairly common in politics, business and even in interpersonal communication.To understand logical fallacies, you should consider the six main categories of fallacy types: attacks, content manipulation, faulty deduction, garbled cause and effect, emotional appeals and mental appeals. While there are dozens of different fallacies, most of them fall into these six groups.Attacks include,Ad hominems [of an argument or reaction, directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining] : bypassing the argument by launching an irrelevant attack on the person and not their claim. Unfortunately, this type of argument can be effective, but pointing out the attack will undermine its effectiveness.Burden of Proof: I don't need to prove my claim—you must prove it is false.Circumstance Ad Hominem: stating a claim isn't credible only because of the advocate's interests in their claim.Genetic Fallacy: Attacking the cause or origin of acclaim, rather than its substance.Guilt by Association: Discrediting an idea or claim by associating it with an undesirable person or group.Straw Man: Creating a distorted or simplified caricature of your opponent's argument, and then arguing against that.Manipulating Content include,
- Ad Hoc Rescue: Trying to save a cherished belief by repeatedly revising the argument to explain away problems.
- Begging the Question: A conclusion is derived from a statement based on the conclusion. Similar to circular logic, only with just one step.
- Biased Generalising: Generalising from an unrepresentative sample to increase the strength of your argument.
- Confirmation Bias: Cherry-picking evidence that supportsyour idea while ignoringcontradictingevidence.
- False Dilemma: Presenting two opposing options as the only two options while hiding alternatives.
- Lie: An outright untruthrepeated knowingly as a fact.
- Misleading Vividness: Describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is a rare occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
- Red Herring: Introducing irrelevant material to the argument to distract and lead towards a different conclusion.
- Slippery Slope: Assuming a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related (negative) events.
- Suppressed Evidence: Intentionally failing to use significant and relevant information that counts against one'sown conclusion.
- Unfalsifiability: Offering a claim that cannot be proven false, because there is no way to check if it is false or not.
Faulty Deduction include,
- Anecdotal Evidence: Discounting evidence arrived at by systematic search or testing In favour of a few first hand stories.
- Composition: Assuming that characteristics or beliefs of some or all of a group apply to the entire group.
- Division: Assuming that characteristics or beliefs of a group automatically apply to any individual member.
- Design Fallacy: Assuming that because somethingis nicely designed or beautifully visualised it’s more true.
- Gambler’s Fallacy: Assuming the history future outcomes.
- Hasty Generalisation: Drawing a general conclusion from a tiny sample.
- Jumping to Conclusion: Drawing a quick conclusion without fairly considering relevant (and easy available) evidence.
- Middle Ground: Assuming because two opposing arguments have merit, the answer must lie somewhere between them.
- Perfectionist Fallacy: Assuming that the only option on the table is perfect success, then rejecting anything that will not work perfectly.
- Relativist Fallacy: Rejecting a claim because of a belief that truth is relative to a person or group.
- Sweeping Generalisation: Applying a general rule too broadly.
- Undistributed Middle: Assuming because two things share a property, that makes them the same thing.
- Spotlight: Assuming an obsorvation from a small sample size applies to entire group.
Garbled cause and effect include,
- Affirming the Consequent: Assuming there's only one explanation for the observation you're making.
- Circular Logic: A conclusion is derived from a premise based on the conclusion.
- Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Claiming two events that occur together must have a cause-and-effect relationship [Correlation = cause]
- Denying the Antecedent: There isn't only one explanation for an outcome, So if it's false to assume the cause based on the effect.
- Ignoring a Common Cause: Claiming one event must have caused the other when a third (unlooked-for) event is probably the cause.
- Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Claiming that because one event followed another, it was also caused by it.
- Two Wrongs make a Right: Assuming that if one wrong is commited, another wrong will cancel it out.
Appeal to the Emotions include,
- Appeal to Consequences of a Belief: Arguing a belief is false because it implies something you'd rather not believe.
- Appeal to Fear: An argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side.
- Appeal to Flattery: Using an Irrelevant compliment to slip in an unfounded claim that is accepted along with the compliment.
- Appeal to Nature: Making your claim seemmore true by drawing a comparison with the 'good' natural world.
- Appeal to Pity: Attempt to Induce pity to swayopponents.
- Appealto Ridicule: Presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear absurd.
- Appeal to Spite: Dismissing a claim by appealing to personal bias against the claimant.
- Appeal to Wishful Thinking: Suggesting a claim is true or false just because you strongly hope it is.
Appeal to the Mind or Mental include,
- Appeal to Popular Belief: Claiming something is true because the majority of people believe it.
- Appeal to Probability: Assuming because something could happen, it will inevitably happen.
- Appeal to Anonymous Authority: Using evidence from an unnamed ‘expert' or 'study' or generalised group (like 'scientists') to claim somethingis true.
- Appeal to Authority: Claiming somethingis true because an unqualified or untrustworthy 'expert' says it is.
- Appeal to Common Practice: Claiming something is true because it's commonly practised.
- Appeal to Ignorance: A claim is true simply because it has not been proven false (or false because it has not been proven true).
- Appeal to Incredulity: Because a claim sounds unbelievable, it must not be true.
- Appeal to Money: Supposing that, if someone is rich or something is expensive, then it affects the truth of the claim.
- Appeal to Novelty: Supposing something is better because it is new or newer.
So, Rhetorical fallacies are deceptive arguments that have misleading reasoning at their foundations. People use rhetorical fallacies when the facts and evidence don't support their standpoint.'Frog stop for a moment, and said, 'So, Rhetorical fallacies are deceptive arguments that have misleading reasoning at their foundations. People use rhetorical fallacies when the facts and evidence don't support their standpoint.By the way, for those who learn Economics, Professor Samuelson mentioned in his 'Economics,' saying, 'Budding economists must also be alert to common fallacies in economic reasoning. Because economic relationships are often complex, involving many different variables, it is easy to become confused about the exact reason behind events or the impact of policies on the economy. The following are some of the common fallacies encountered in economic reasoning,
- The post hoc fallacy ['Post hoc' is shorthand for post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Translated from the Latin, the full expression means 'after this, therefore necessarily because of this']. The first fallacy involves the inference of causality. The post hoc fallacy occurs when we assume that, because one event occurred before another event, the first event caused the second event. An example of this syndrome occurred in the Great Depression of the 1930s in the United States. Some people had observed that periods of business expansion were preceded or accompanied by rising prices. From this, they concluded that the appropriate remedy for depression was to raise wages and prices. This idea led to a host of legislation and regulations to prop up wages and prices in an inefficient manner. Did these measures promote economic recovery? Almost surely not. Indeed, they probably slowed recovery, which did not occur until total spending began to rise as the government increased military spending in preparation for World War II.
- Failure to hold other things constant. A second pitfall is failure to hold other things constant when thinking about an issue. For example, we might want to know whether raising tax rates will raise or lower tax revenues. Some people have put forth the seductive argument that we can eat our fiscal cake and have it too. They argue that cutting tax rates will at the same time raise government revenues and lower the budget deficit. They point to the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts of 1964, which lowered tax rates sharply and were followed by an increase in government revenues in 1965. Hence, they argue, lower tax rates produce higher revenues. Why is this reasoning fallacious? The argument assumes that other things were constant—in particular, it overlooked the growth in the overall economy from 1964 to 1965. Because people’s incomes grew during that period, total tax revenues grew even though tax rates were lower. Careful econometric studies indicate that total tax revenues would have been even higher in 1965 if tax rates had been held at the same level as in 1964. Hence, this analysis fails to hold other things constant in making the calculations. Remember to hold other things constant when you are analyzing the impact of a variable on the economic system.
- The fallacy of composition. Sometimes we assume that what holds true for part of a system also holds true for the whole. In economics, however, we often find that the whole is different from the sum of the parts. When you assume that what is true for the part is also true for the whole, you are committing the fallacy of composition. Here are some true statements that might surprise you if you ignored the fallacy of composition: (1) If one farmer has a bumper crop, she has a higher income; if all farmers produce a record crop, farm incomes will fall. (2) If one person receives a great deal more money, that person will be better off; if everyone receives a great deal more money, the society is likely to be worse off. (3) If a high tariff is put on a product such as shoes or steel, the producers in that industry are likely to profit; if high tariffs are put on all products, the economic welfare of the nation is likely to be worse off.
These examples contain no tricks or magic. Rather, they are the results of systems of interacting individuals. Often the behavior of the aggregate looks very different from the behavior of individual people.'Toad nid-nod, 'All of these types of fallacies can quickly weaken a strong argument. In order to communicate clearly, I should remember to avoid these fallacies and know how to spot them in opposing points of view.'Frog turned to the tv and exclaimed, 'Look Toad, your favourite artist is to sing your favourite song, let's follow her to sing the song!'Afterwards Toad and Frog were doing karaoke,Jika ada yang bilang kulupa kau[If someone said I forgot you]Jangan kau dengar[Don't listen]Jika ada yang bilang ku tak setia[If someone said I was unfaithful]Jangan kau dengar[Don't listen]Banyak cinta yang datang mendekat[Lots of love coming closer]Ku menolak[I refused]Semua itu kar'na kucinta kau[All of it because I love you]Jika ada yang bilang ku tak baik[If someone said I was not good]Jangan kau dengar[Don't listen]Jika ada yang bilang kuberubah[If someone said I've changed]Jangan kau dengar[Don't listen]Banyak cinta yang datang mendekat[Lots of love coming closer]Ku menolak[I refused]Semua itu kar'na kucinta kau *)[All of it because I love you]Before she disappeared, Swara said, "And Allah knows best."
- Walton, Douglas N., A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy Studies in Rhetoric and Communication, University of Alabama Press
- David McCandless, Knowledge is Beautiful, William Collins
- Paul A. Samuelson and Willian D. Nuedhause, Economics 19e, McGraw-Hill
*) "Karena Kucinta Kau" written by Parlin Burman, Nurdiansyah Syafaruddin & Cynthia Dewi Bayu Wardhani
