recent thread...

I have recently had some good threads on the Obama/McCain question. I have justifiably been challenged on a few things...

I've been thinking about it at work today and want to start with this clarification

Logical fallacies are points in an argument where there is a jump in logic... one point does not follow from another. They are by nature part of our way of discussing things... they are short cuts...

The rhetorical challenge is to point out the fallacies and demand clarification. Its not necessarily a shot at the intentions of another. Its just a request for clarification.

anecdotal evidence is the fallacy I thought about at work. It can be justified in certain cases... at least in my mind. In my response I pointed out that anecdotal evidence is a classic tactic/tool of conservatives. Just watch fox news... or listen to your local right winger... we all know them!

Here is a way I consistently use it... and I feel it is justifiable... ya'll feel free to comment on this perspective...

I generalize from personal experiences with highly successful people I've come across in my life... who are next to near incompetent in many important aspects--understanding of basic economics, political institutions, and the way one should treat their neighbors. From this I generalize that there is no reason to assume people lower down on the totem pole are any different--as a broad generalization.

I take from an empirical experience and apply more broadly. Many times its used in what I see as an inverse usage. Taking the illegal immigrant, the welfare cheat, criminals, drug addicts... what have you and say broad things about poverty, will-power, determination to rise above, and hard work. I see this as something that should be challenged...

Is that inconsistent or unjustified on my part? I dunno... if it is i'm in the wrong on that one.
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com