|
|
The rhetorical trick equivalent to the middle ground fallacyAKA trust me I am not a partisen so my judgement is good.
I have noticed that there are a variety speech and debate tricks that people use that are not exactly fallacies because there is no logical flaw, yet they are just to convince people during speeches or debates by manipulating the social context of the debate. I like learning/naming these because they help you spot manipulative arguments as well as faulty ones. One named one is the "Gish Gallop" which you can look up if you don't know it butthat is not what I am talking about here. The one i want to know the name of is the rhetorical trick where someone tries to look more credible, fair or lucid by hating or liking both sides of a disagreement where it is not established the two sides are equivalent. Example, I listen to scientists on both sides of the global warming and evolution debates and the only think we can say for certain is that there are a lot of unknowns. Or I know this herbal cream will cure you infection because i am someone who listens to both doctors and alternative healers and then picks the best from each. Or I listened to the republican debates last night and all those guys are crazy and i say this despite the fact i hate democrats. Or I follow common sense spirituality that says you know in your heart there is a personal God; I hate Atheists and Chisrtians both because they are extremists. So its basically where you pretend to your audience your judgment is good, because you are not a partisen as if partisen bias is the only judgement problem you could have. is there a name for this rhetorical trick (I am not a partisen therefore you can trust my judgement). If not, what should we call it? |
| asked on Wednesday, Oct 21, 2015 01:33:18 AM by michael | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
|
This is very close to the Argument to Moderation : asserting that given any two positions, there exists a compromise between them that must be correct. However, what you are describing no such assertion appears to be made, rather an overall image is trying to be obtained based on perceived neutrality. As you suggest, not really fallacious but more of a rhetorical devise often referred to as "political speak" or even "pandering." |
| answered on Wednesday, Oct 21, 2015 07:18:42 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
