Communications and Media

The line of distinction between fallacies and truth is indeed very narrow. While some truths sound fallacious, such as a Bush president will always push America into war, (it is a proved fact), some fallacies sound true America is great because of black immigrants. Consider Tiger Woods in the golf course, or Kobe Bryant in Basketball. Oh, there is the sensational Serena Williams, and of course, all the celebrities of pop music 50 cents, Kanye West, Jay-Z, et al. Therefore blacks have made America great. Had they not closed the Atlantic during the slave trade era, America will not be as great as it is today. Hence, slavery is good

This is not true, of course, but the claim is very logically substantiated with credible evidence. Such arguments, or claims for that matter, which make conclusions that are either incorrect or untrue, but supported with equally untrue premises, (Moreland and Craig, 2003, 58) are what is generally called fallacies.  In responding to the question on whether fallacies make any significant contribution to an argument, it is necessary, therefore, to define what exactly constitutes an argument. Simply put, an argument must have two parts a premise and a conclusion. While the conclusion states a position, the premise gives possible reasons (remember the reasons need not necessarily be true) as to why the position is correct. By examining the various forms of fallacies and their manifestation in real life discourse situations, the paper argues that fallacies, despite their invalidity, can make a significant contribution to an argument.

Rarely are fallacies based on random assumptions. Like logical arguments, they also aim to convince, persuade or support a taken stance. As such, the person who makes a fallacious claim is as ingenuous in reasoning as the one who make an authentic one. The fact that a fallacy has a position to defend, and is armed with evidence, is an argument in itself because to refute it, the opponent must point out its weaknesses, un-reasonability or anomaly of logic, so to speak. For instance, the claim that the US owes her fame to black Americans is substantially credible as demonstrated above. However, it is utterly fallacious to say that America needs to sustain an influx of blacks to maintain her fame, or to generalize that black- Americans make good leaders on the basis of one case. Thus, the opponent will have to argue (correctly in fact) that abundance of blacks has not made Africa famous- well, not for the good reasons.

Over-generalized fallacies point to observable evidence that requires overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary to dispute them.  The case of President Barrack Obama can be generalized to support the claim that irresponsible fathers are good for their sons.  If Obama Senior had been a responsible father, he would have carried along his son to Africa with him. Were he that responsible, however, Barrack Obama could have possibly spent much of his childhood herding goats in a small village in Kenya, running around in tattered shorts. Then, he wouldnt have had a chance to study in one of the worlds best universities, or had the remotest chance to enter into American politics. On the contrary, his father was an irresponsible fake who run away and left him behind. However, Obama grew up to become the most powerful president in the world, all because his father was irresponsible.

If this is not an argument, what then makes one
Fallacies follow a logical connection of premises and conclusions (Damer, 2008, 93). In inductive reasoning, they use individual cases to draw upon a wider generalization. In the above example, the claim is logical logic has nothing to do with truth or possibility. On the contrary, it concerns itself with the relationship between a conclusion and its premise. Accordingly, the claim that Obama became president of the US because his father left him behind holds water - as a matter of fact, that is exactly what happened. However, the conclusion that irresponsible fathers are good for their sons is a fallacy, since Obamas case is a singular incidence that has been overly generalized. Nonetheless, to dismantle the fallacy, more authentic and irrefutable evidence to the contrary is needed (Hansen and Pinto, 1995, 3). Consequently, an intelligent argument in response to a fallacious claim is generated. It is in this consideration that the paper emphasizes the significance of fallacies in an argument. In both cases, reasonable evidence is required to strengthen a position.

It is difficult to isolate fallacies from daily discourse. In fact, society is characterized by fallacies, especially in politics, where  they become a strong basis of discrediting opponents. Ad hominem fallacies, in particular, are used in this sense, when they ignore the issue in question and attack an opponents character (Hughes and Lavery, 2004, 152). For instance, political rival can aim to discredit opponents by pointing to their flaws, which might not be relevant to the issue in question. For instance, one can dismiss the other that his wife earns more than he does he should not be voted as our leader. The arguments proponent ignores the fact that leadership is not related to income. Instead, the fallacy appeals to collective pride as a standard of determining good leaders.

Nonetheless, fallacies fail to make a significant argument in situations that empirical evidence is impossible. A good example is religion, where claims are believed on the basis of faith, that is, in the absence of reason (Moreland and Craig, 2003). Most Christians believe that St. Peter walked on water because of faith. However, that fallacy cannot be substantiated. Since the time of Christ, no one else has ever managed to walk on water by faith. Either the claim is a complete fallacy, or there is nobody who is faithful. In either way, both claims could not be proved or refuted, and therefore makes little contribution to an argument. Similarly, fallacies of ambiguity makes it difficult to determine the intended meaning. For instance, the statement that the rich also cry does not make clear the reference of the word cry. It commonly refers to the universal suffering that afflict people regardless their positions, e.g. death. However, in some contexts, it might imply the literal sense of crying, which is fallacious when it generalizes the condition of all rich men.

In conclusion, fallacies employ communication strategies to support stated claims. A fallacy is not a mere statement such as the widely believed rumor (for lack of a better term) that John Speke, the British explorer, discovered Lake Victoria. It has no premise to refute the truth that there were indigenous people who had seen it before. In this regard, the strongest point in a fallacy is the premise. By having an agreeable premise, fallacies contribute significantly to discourse for the fact that they persuade and convince, as well as by provoking a counter-argument.