Structural Fallacies

I found most interest in the Different Fallacies in Chapter 11 of the Epstien text. I have stumbled upon Fallacies numerous times in my other classes and in conversation with my peers.

In this blog I will focus on Structural Fallacies. I found them very interesting because content, which i thought would normally be most vital, is not incorporated. It makes me think of the way approach arguments within my fraternity. On a daily bases I need to approach brothers and tell them something that they need to do, or have not been doing. It's always a hard situation that I often find myself reflecting after about; different ways i could have approached the situation. If I were to focus not so much on what I was going to tell them, but how i was going to tell them, I could potentially get my point across with less controversy. The indirect way of reasoning ( if A, then B. Not B. Therefore, not A.) is practiced seldom in my organization and as the Epstien text elucidates, it is a strong argument. The corresponding Fallacy type is more frequently used. Usually a fact is presented, and what is suppose to happen because that fact is said. Then we tell the person in question that the fact was not upheld and that is why the result has not happened. (If A, then B. Not A. Therefore, not B). I realize that this only confuses the situation because instead of pointing out whats wrong first, we state how it should be. When you state how it should be first and what went wrong second the person in question will leave with the thought of what he did wrong and not what he could do to fix it.