BEGINNING A PLANNING SESSION

In the last posting, this blog reviewed a list of fallacies that are used in rhetorical efforts.  They are not necessarily used every time a speaker engages in rhetoric, but experience shows the temptation, on the part of politicians, salespeople, lawyers, or other persuaders, to use them is formidable. 

The list consists of appeal to ignorance, appeal to authority, appeal to popular opinion, association fallacy, attacking the person, begging the question, circular argument, false causation fallacy, false dilemma/dichotomy, illogical conclusion, slippery slope, and syllogism fallacy.  Each was described and an example of each was given.

          There are other fallacy types.  They include overstate one’s premise of a position as the determining factor of the case and lay the burden of proof on those who are questioning a policy position.  Some of these types are similar one to another, but each can be distinguished from the others.

          And with that, this writer will begin a promised set of postings in which he will, in real time, report on an attempt to develop a unit of study.  The topic for that unit is foreign trade and that trade’s effect on employment opportunities.  This is a legitimate topic under the concerns of the mental construct (or social philosophy), federation theory – the construct promoted by this blog. 

This inclusion is justified by the fact that foreign trade since the 1970s has had much to do with the elimination of high paying manufacturing jobs that has stricken what is generally described as the “rust belt” and other manufacturing centers around the country.  This has affected those workers in that their status as economic actors or as political entities within the polity have been highly compromised.  For many, the changes have taken place at a time in life that disallows them to improve their statuses.  This is a genuine equality issue.

Beyond the conditions at the individual level, what has also developed is a shifting of national income away from workers toward the entrepreneur class or to those who have high levels of capital accumulation.[1]  In addition, that trend has accelerated:

A new Pew Research Center analysis of wealth finds the gap between America’s upper-income and middle-income families has reached its highest level on record.  In 2013, the median wealth of the nation’s upper-income families ($639,400) was nearly seven times the median wealth of middle-income families ($96,500), the widest wealth gap seen in 30 years when the Federal Reserve began collecting data.[2]

While this quote refers to wealth, the gap reflects the shifting of income toward the upper-class.  Here are a few more statistics:  the median income – median meaning half of those measured fall above and half below – for the middle fifth of income earning households rose a mere 13% between 1970 and 2014 – an average rise per year of just under 0.3% – and a lot of that increase was due to the influx of women workers during those years.  Overall median income rose 0.3% between 2000 and 2004, while those of Canada and Great Britain rose circa 20% during those same years.[3]

Therefore, the current condition offends federalist values as described and explained in this blog.  In turn, foreign trade with its consequences has been a significant contributing factor.[4]

          Hopefully, the reader agrees with this short rationale.  Assuming he/she does, this posting continues with the planning process.  As a reminder, the writer – henceforth referred to as the developer – has identified the solo source of information he is using in this demonstration.  That is Edward Alden’s book cited above.  He will augment this by using readily available sources of information such as Wikipedia.

          The planning begins with identifying an insight that can be derived from a reputable source such as a book by a legitimate writer like Alden, from news accounts from legitimate news sources like the New York Times, or from a legitimate study such as those developed the Pew Research Center. 

          Once identified, the insight is thought of and a lesson is imagined that instructs the essence of the insight.  Insights are deemed worthy for consideration by evaluating its power (the numbers of people affected), its meaningfulness (the quality of its effect on people’s lives), and its relevancy given the students being taught.  The developer will make comment on these qualities as he introduces each insight. 

Instruction for given lesson can be didactic (dispensing of information) or interactive in which students engage in a discovery activity.  The latter will be favored.  Each insight – during this development – will not be introduced in any given order, but as they become known to the developer.  Remember, this account is shared on a “real time” basis and the developer presently does not know how this effort will work out. 

The attempt here will be to give the non-teacher reader a sense of what a teacher does when preparing a lesson plan – a lesson plan that goes beyond just reviewing what the textbook offers next.  In addition, this demonstration is to introduce an instructional approach to civics which this blog has entitled historic-based dialogue.

          The first insight is as follows:  Displaced workers who have lost their jobs to workers of other countries cannot follow those jobs to those other countries.  There are three reasons for this inability.  There are language barriers, cultural barriers, and, compared to what their lifestyles demand, depressed wages.

          A second insight is:  Along with competition emanating from imported goods and foreign producers, there is also competition factors relating to technology that further add to the disadvantages of US workers.  Specifically, the introduction of computers and all related technologies have proven to further assist shifting jobs abroad and to introduce automation domestically.  While both are hurtful to US workers, it is foreign competition that is most detrimental in that it physically takes jobs away.

          A third insight is:  Agreements among nations that have very detrimental effects on the availability of jobs in the US have been the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).  Currently, another potential agreement is the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).  NAFTA was agreed to in 1993 and WTO in 2003.  TPP is still under negotiation and President Trump has drawn the US out of what, to date, had been agreed.  In addition, NAFTA is presently under renegotiation talks. 

The supporters of these agreements have argued they create new jobs; lead to higher wages; and will make available greater diversity of consumer goods.  Opponents argue that they send jobs elsewhere; decrease wages; and increase inequality.  The developer would add another benefit; these agreements have led to lower consumer prices.

          To start the thought process in developing daily lesson plans, the next posting will take up this first set of insights and begin formulating a lesson for each that determines what students will be instructed and what they will be called upon to do.  This will be a short paragraph or two that summarizes what each lesson will be.

---

[1] Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 2014).

[2] Richard Fry and Rakesh Kochhar, “America’s Wealth Gap between Middle-Income and Upper-Income Is Widest on Record,” Fact Tank, December 17, 2014, accessed on August 31, 2017, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/17/wealth-gap-upper-middle-income/ .

[3] Edward Alden, Failure to Adjust:  How Americans Got Left Behind in the Global Economy (Lanham, MD:  Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2016).

[4] Ibid.

FALLACY TYPES

This promises to be a short posting.  It is the last entry regarding logical argument.  The last posting reviewed sources of faulty argumentation which relate to rhetoric.  This was introduced by describing three sources of misleading rhetoric often intentionally employed to convince an audience of a point, but which falls short of logical argument.  The three are ethos (based on good reputation), pathos (based on good feelings), and logos (based on insufficient evidence).  These three sources lead to recurring forms or types of fallacies.

          They are so common that logicians have been able to classify them and this posting reports on twelve types of fallacies.  They are:  appeal to ignorance, appeal to authority, appeal to popular opinion, association fallacy, attacking the person, begging the question, circular argument, false causation fallacy, false dilemma/dichotomy, illogical conclusion, slippery slope, and syllogism fallacy.

          Each can be defined and illustrated as follows:

·        Appeal to ignorance – Since the listener cannot prove something does not exist, it is therefore true.  Example:  Since one cannot “see” whether organic life exists on the side of the moon facing away from the earth, there is organic life on that side of the moon.

·        Appeal to authority – Also known as “argumentum verecundia” (argument from modesty); if someone of respect for their knowledge believes/believed in some conclusion, it must be true.  Since the genius, Einstein, rejected the unpredictability of quantum mechanics, it must not be true.

·        Appeal to public opinion – Since something is generally believed by the public, it must be true.  Example:  Since football (American style) is so popular, it should not be regulated in terms of its alleged effect on brain damage.

·        Association fallacy – Also known as “guilt by affiliation;” something is wrong, untrue, or immoral because an unsavory person believes or ascribes to it.  Example:  Since our political adversaries want this law, it must be awful and we would be wise to reject it.  Or, since my political opponent is backed by the leader of the opposition, voters should reject him/her.

·        Attacking the person – Also known as “ad hominem;” it is backing a position by insulting the person or group espousing it.  Example:  Why would anyone listen to a proposition offered by that jerk?

·        Begging the question – Posing a conclusion that is contained in the inquiry such as an attempt to sell it by restating it in other words.  Example – Since taking a day off every so often is healthy, it must be good for a person to take a vacation once a year.

·        Circular argument – Also known as “circulus in probando;” argument that uses an element of the argument to back up its conclusion instead of going outside the argument for such backing.  Example:  Since rainy days are soothing, the sight of rain mellows one’s day.

·        False causation fallacy – Also known as “cum hoc ergo propter hoc;” stating something is the cause of something else only because it proceeded the second event.  Often considered a superstition.  Example:  Every time I wear pink shoe laces, the Tigers win.  Or, they moved to Baltimore and, six months later, they are getting a divorce.  Baltimore ruined their marriage.

·        False dilemma/dichotomy – Also known as “bifurcation;” narrowing an argument to only two false options.  Example:  If you don’t accept this proposal, you must be actively seeking the bankruptcy of this business.

·        Illogical conclusion – Making a conclusion that simply does not logically follow from the evidence offered or previously established conclusions.  All loyal Americans believe in democracy, and Jane is not an American, therefore, Jane does not believe in democracy.

·        Slippery slope – If one allows an event to happen, it will lead to more serious and detrimental events to happen.  Example:  If a few illegal immigrants commits a serious crime, then being lenient on illegal immigration will lead to uncontrollable crime rates.

·        Syllogism fallacy – A conclusion derived from a syllogistically formed argument that is illogical.  Example:  All homing pigeons are white, the bird in my cage is white, therefore, it is a homing pigeon.

These forms of fallacy are common in our political discourse.  They usually are subtler than the examples offered above; that is, they sound more persuasive.  One should remember that illogical arguments can be true, it is just that the argument as presented does not make the case that it is. 

And one can guess that if a logical argument is available to a reasonably intelligent advocate, the fact that it was not used, perhaps he/she is attempting to employ illogical rhetoric to convince without having logical reasons to promote the position being argued.  If national politicians trying to appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment, cite some examples of illegal actions by a few immigrants to argue they are responsible for heightened crime rates, one is tempted to question the motivation of such argumentation.

These concerns are so central to the instructional approach this blog is promoting that a teacher would be well-served to begin each lesson with an example of an illogical argument – using one of the types just reviewed – and hold a quick contest as to which student can first identify the type it is.  Perhaps, that student can earn some extra credit.  If done at the beginning of each lesson, students in the class can get a significant amount of practice in detecting illogical arguments.