In beginning our look at common logical fallacies, it is good that we mention what are called "the available means of persuasion." This broadens our subject somewhat, for we are not only looking at logical fallacies but also at the right and wrong way to persuade or to be persuaded.
"The methodical core of Aristotle's Rhetoric is the theorem that there are three 'technical' pisteis, i.e. 'persuaders' or 'means of persuasion'. Persuasion comes about either through the character (êthos) of the speaker, the emotional state (pathos) of the hearer, or the argument (logos) itself."
For Aristotle, rhetoric was “the ability, in each case, to see all of the available means of persuasion.”
Notice that Aristotle did not say "all ethical means of persuasion." The fact is, people every day are persuaded of things based upon a speaker's ethos or a speaker's appeal to pathos, or to their emotions. That is not to say that persuasion should lack zeal and emotion by the speaker, nor that a speaker's credibility has no basis in persuasion, only that believing that speaker's propositions and affirmations should rely on the logical and evidential proofs given by the persuader. Over the years in my debates and discussions with others I have had some who would discount arguments I offered that were made by others, saying "that source is not credible because they are wrong on some other things."
I see this among some Reformed and Hyper Calvinists. I have to respond to them by saying "you should not believe the argument because it comes from a source you discount but should consider the argument (logos) itself that the source makes." If I give an argument on a proposition given by a Catholic and someone who is not Catholic says "it cannot be correct because it was made by a Catholic," they are basing their decision on the argument based upon the ethos or presumed credibility of the speaker. It is also what is called an ad hominem argument, but more on that later in this series.
If I hear a person trying to persuade people of a proposition and say "I just feel that he is right," or "I sense he is right or wrong," then that is believing based upon appeals to emotion. This is not the way to find the truth. Many people have been led astray by experienced Sophists who know how to appeal to emotions. We see this in most commercials and advertising messages. See my posting "Marketers As Persuaders Sophists?"(here) It also includes appealing to people's inner biases and prejudices. Con men are often good persuaders of the Sophist kind.
From another posting (here) I wrote the following on - Ethos, Pathos, & Logos:
Ethos is about establishing your authority to speak on the subject, logos is your logical argument for your point and pathos is your effort to sway an audience emotionally.
Ethos has to do with the speaker, with his credibility, authority, and character. It involves a speaker's credentials, the reasons why he should be heard or "worth listening to." It also includes dressing appropriately, using a good choice of words, giving the impression that the speaker is sincere and honest by his demeanor, deportment, and the way things are spoken or characterized.
Pathos has to do with the hearers of a speaker and with their emotions, including their prejudices and biases, as we see in "emotional appeals," or when a speaker seeks to "draw pity from an audience," or when he seeks to excite and arouse sentiment. Speakers want people to "experience" and feel the weight and intensity of the discourse, to receive it with the same passion in which it is spoken, to feel a certain way.
Logos is an appeal to logic and reason, to concrete fact and proof. Words, speech, or argument first reside in the mind of the speaker before it is communicated to the audience. Thus, just as pathos appealed to emotion so logos appeals to intellect.
In that posting in the series titled "God's Elect or World's Elite" I showed how Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians wrote against the views of the Sophists. I referred to the Sophists in my previous post that introduced this series. I have also mentioned them in several other postings.
In that same article I wrote:
The Sophists were orators, public speakers, mouths for hire in an oral culture. They were itinerant tutors who claimed to teach all that was necessary for "success in public life," how to "get ahead." They mainly taught rhetoric and related fields such as grammar, history, and literary criticism, psychology, etc., but all for the wrong reasons and ends. They were also in many cases the lawyers of the day, paid advocates, people who could argue either side of a case.
When cases are tried by public opinion, those who can best sway, via rhetoric and debate skills, the assembly of citizens assembled to try cases, are most desired by defendants, those who have been accused. This was the case with Paul when he stood on the mount in Athens when on public trial for his discourse, for his "logos." (Acts 17) There he gave his "apology," that is, his "rational verbal defense." In this he had to "answer" the charges of his accusers. (I Peter 3: 15, discussed previously)
In the same article I also wrote:
The Sophists "paid for hire" speakers spawned the word "sophism" as a result of their "artful dodger" type of argumentation. "Sophism" is "a plausible but fallacious argument, or deceptive argumentation in general. In rhetorical studies, sophism refers to the argumentative strategies practiced and taught by the Sophists." (See here) Sophism is what Paul saw in his opponents in Athens and he saw it on many other occasions.
In proving a proposition, and convincing others of its correctness, logos should be the sole authority, the only place where proof is proven. Appeals to authority and appeals to emotion, though they have their place, are not to be relied upon for determining the truth of a proposition. This certainly ought to be true, and often is, in a court of law. If the proposition to be debated is "defendant (accused) is guilty of X crime" there should be only appeal to proof and undeniable evidence of the facts. That is not to say that there is no place for appeal to the emotions, or an appeal to the credibility of the lawyers or "expert witnesses," for both prosecutors and defense attorneys make use of them. After all, they are trying to convince or persuade the judge and the jury and where logic and facts alone are judged to be insufficient to prove or disprove the proposition, the persuaders will make use of appeals to emotion and to authority. This is where the Sophists were often quite successful. After all, appeals to emotion and to the credibility of witnesses are part of "the available means of persuasion." But, reliance should be solely upon the logical argument and upon the evidentiary proofs.
An AI Google response about logos argumentation has this to say:
"A "logos argument" should be considered supreme because it primarily relies on logic, reason, and factual evidence to persuade an audience, making it the most reliable and objective form of argumentation, as it appeals directly to the listener's rational mind and critical thinking abilities, unlike emotional appeals (pathos) or appeals based on personal credibility (ethos)."
I contend that this is what all should agree is right and proper and all persuaders should avoid using unethical means to persuade others. We should be appealing to the rational mind. Said the same source:
"When an argument is supported by strong logos, it enhances the speaker's credibility and persuasiveness."
"While logos is crucial, depending on the situation, effectively using pathos (emotional appeal) or ethos (personal credibility) might be necessary to enhance the overall persuasive power."
"Be cautious of using flawed logic or logical fallacies when constructing a logos argument, as it can weaken the overall impact."
In the next chapter we will begin looking at common logical fallacies.
No comments:
Post a Comment