Content Fallacies

Content Fallacies

I really enjoyed this fallacy and its focus on precise premises. Even if ones argument can be valid and/or strong, if the premises is not precise, then other factors of the argument can be factored in. When other factors come into play, the argument can be construed to have a different objective then the person who formulated it had in mind.

Epstien's claim about some of the different words that right away can tell you the argument is not valid (Almost, in this group, probably) is one that I had definitely not considered in my speech. When I try and formulate arguments with my peers about something that they did, or something that I believe to be true within my organization, I usually dip into such words only because I do not want to sound like I am always right and there is no possible way that there can be any other way than MY way.

I feel like when you argue with a person about something they have done negative towards yourself, or something you represent, it's better to let them gain some sort of satisfaction in the argument first so that they feel like they have said their point and it has been recognized. Once this is done, make your argument towards that person and usually they will be more understanding of their fault, and if not, they'll at least be receptive to what you're saying. The reason is because you have given them the air and the ear before you impressed on them what you think they did.

I have used this tactic numerous times throughout my life and have had great success. In addition, the great thing about this tactic is that it also strengthens the relationship of the two people arguing while not violating the principles of rational discussion.