 |
| Washington, DC |
Updated article for an entry on academia.edu on June 4, 2023
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
The review of this philosophy text, continued.
Nauseam, argumentum ad
Simple repetition of a point of view does nothing to provide additional evidence or facts. (147).
My Mother in her earlier days, loved this approach...
'Yet it can erode the critical faculty'.' (147). Things are not more true because they are heard more often. (147).
Based on the author's example: (148).
I have told you three times...!!!
The fact is '...repetition adds nothing to logic.' (148). Fallaciously, psychological factors are appealed to as opposed to logic. (148). Emotion is favoured over reason. A subjective approach used over an objective approach.
Based on the author's example: (148).
To an RCMP officer:
It was not me!
I said, it was not me?
It was not me, for sure!
Out of interest, as with my last Langer, philosophical text review, where she uses socialism in an example, Pirie does here as well. He reasons that this fallacy could be presented with the terms 'Socialism means rule by the workers.' Pirie appears like me, to be of a conservative view. Perhaps in support of his suggestion, it could be stated that socialism exchanges one rule by elites for another rule by elites?
Here in Canada, being governed by the Conservative party is rule by a group of elites. I would reason that being governed by the New Democratic Party, would entail being ruled by another group of elites. Of course with present, media star, Prime Minister Trudeau and his followers of the Liberal Party. we are likely going to be ruled by the Liberal party elites for decades!
What is a reasonable, philosophical, political answer to being ruled by elites? Rule by the people through online referendums? Are enough people in the general public significantly educated with the issues to support reasonable views?
A theoretical referendum proposition:
Should Christian churches that support biblical standards on sexuality and marriage be made illegal in Canada?
This would be a proposition being presented to a Canadian public, largely not educated, within the disciplines of religious studies, philosophy, political science and constitutional law. The results could threaten religious liberty.
Pirie explains that 'political credos' are presented with the use of this fallacy. (148).
Cited:
'Etymology
Latin Noun argumentum ad nauseam (rhetoric)
The false proof of a statement by (prolonged) repetition, possibly by different people.'
 |
| A twisted crown of thorns.com: I think not... |
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.
PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers, New York, Shelter Harbour Press.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.
