|
|
Checkers Speech: Straw Man or Red Herring?Would you describe Richard Nixon's 1952 Checkers speech as a straw man fallacy or a simple red herring? Why? Many articles about the straw many fallacy describe it as a two-step process: 1) A propagandists creates a shallow imitation of his opponent's argument (i.e. a "straw man"). 2) The propagandist then knocks his argument down, creating the illusion that he destroyed his opponent's original argument. Most straw man examples clearly illustrate the first step (e.g. introducing Checkers), but I don't see the second step. If we view checkers as a straw man "argument," then how did Nixon knock that particular straw man down? Wikipedia's straw man article calls the Checkers speech a straw man, but I'm voting to call it a red herring. Can anyone tell me why I'm either right or wrong? |
|||
| asked on Saturday, Mar 06, 2021 07:30:18 PM by David Blomstrom | ||||
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.
