According to Epstein, structural arguments are some type of arguments that are bad because of their form. It doesn't matter if they are about animals, human beings, things, false or truth. It is just bad because the form alone shows that the person is not reasoning well.
One fallacy type is arguing backwards with all:
All S are P.
a is P.
Therefore, a is S.
For example:
All cheeseburgers have bread.
Ham sandwich has bread.
Therefore, ham sandwich is a cheeseburger.
This is really a bad argument since we all know that a ham sandwich is not a cheeseburger. There is no way to fix this argument at all.
Another example is:
All girls are noisy.
Eddie Murphy is noisy.
Therefore, Eddie Murphy is a girl.
Same goes for this argument. It is bad. We all know that Eddie Murphy is not a girl. There is no way to fix it.
Both arguments do not make sense at all.
I like the fact that you explained the book’s example because I couldn’t understand it for the life of me! But just to let you know, GIRLS AREN’T NOISY! Haha, but I think the Eddie Murphy argument can be repaired if you add a few more premises. For example if you add, “in this film, Eddie Murphy’s nails were long and red and he wore a wig”, this argument could be repaired, and the added premise supports the conclusion. For some reason, I really had a tough time with this topic, and every blog I read, the examples seem to look like they were easier and easier to come up with.
ReplyDeleteI like how you managed to use very basic examples in order to support how bad this fallacy is. Is there really anyway to argue backwards in order to make an argument sound convincing? I find this form of fallacy to be very ugly and would not try use this in an argument. Maybe you should use other example that could sound convincing, but at the same time it may still be a fallacy.
ReplyDelete