Credibility of a person is one very important aspect in determining their validity of an argument. Credible people can most likely lead to their augments being considered valid and other people who are considered incredible will lead to their arguments considered incredible. There is a time in the office where two of my co-workers were arguing on who left the office the previous day because something was missing in the office. One of the two had some disciple cases back from high school and college involving a missing property. The other had no known issue of this kind. Though it wasn’t conclusive, I somehow trusted the one who had no known issue and thought maybe the other one had resorted to their dubious means.
- What factors do a person’s credibility play into whether someone argument is accepted or not? Why or why not? Provide an example of a situation in which a person’s credibility played into the validity of the argument.
Using stereotypes, innuendo, and loaded questions is normally not good when judging someone. Taking the general image, stereotyping, to judge someone isn’t good because someone can react to a situation unexpectedly and judging from that particular incident without understanding the situations that compelled the person to do that might lead making the wrong conclusion. Innuendo is the worst because it disapproves without consideration at all. Negative hints that someone makes about other people will lead to a bad general opinion. It is wrong. Loaded questions on the other hand though some people might consider a little bit better, it is still not good because it takes into consideration a little bit and specific part of someone. Not understanding them generally.
- Identify and critique the use of stereotypes, innuendo, and loaded questions
There are various fallacies. The psychological fallacies listed are those that are in use and have been used from time to time or even fallen for them. These are the fallacies; ad hoc rationalization, affirming the consequent, ad hominem or ad feminam, appeal to ignorance, begging the question, argument to logic, composition fallacy, disjunctive fallacy, denying the antecedent, division fallacy, false analogy, existential fallacy, false continuum, false equivalence, false dilemma, genetic fallacy, mistaking deductive validity for truth, golden mean fallacy, naturalistic fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this), nominal fallacy, red herring, straw person, slippery slope, and you too.
- name fallacies that appeal to psychological elements other than emotion
To me, saying that most disagreements or differences of opinion are more often a result of faulty, misunderstood, or confusing premises, rather than faulty reason from a valid premise is right. I agree with it. People disagree with one another because they have varying knowledge on the issue in question. The way people get things is different. This then leads to disagreements when the two parties involved are in their correct state of mind. People will give an opinion based on their understanding and the believe on it they hold so dear whether right or wrong. It leads to confusion, misunderstanding and invalid reasoning.
- Consider the following statement: Most disagreements or differences of opinion are more often a result of faulty, misunderstood, or confusing premises, rather than faulty reason from a valid premise. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Explain your answer.
We were summoned to an urgent meeting one day by our boss. He sent one of the support staff to meet us within 30 minutes in room 12. The support staff told us that the boss wanted to meet us in room 21. We went and waited for him. We waited for over an hour but no one appeared. Some people started walking around looking for clear understanding on the issue and boredom. The boss on the other hand was in room 12 waiting. There was confusion and since the two rooms (12 and 21) are far apart structurally, the meeting took place very late when the exact location was known. The misunderstanding could have been avoided if there was a room in the office meant for meetings or also if there was a printed memo early enough from the boss’ office.
- Think and describe a misunderstanding in the work place, who was the sender and who was receiver? What was the misunderstanding and how it could have been avoided