Personal Reflection- Fallacies

Personal Reflection- Fallacies

It was in the summer of 2018, and I was talking with my parents. They were talking to me about the company I keep. They highlighted their reasons why they thought the company I kept was not beneficial to me at that time. They pointed out the fact that my company had dropped out of school, some were indulging in drugs and alcohol; some were even associated with robberies. They were not seeing why I should keep that company for they do not see what we share in common. They pointed out the likelihood of them influencing me with their behavior. I was agitated and did not accept their argument citing they took alcohol and used to smoke too but they just turned out fine. I knew they were right but I felt a need to stick with my friends for we grew up together.

I knew I was wrong even from my reaction to what my parents were trying to talk to me about. The answer I provided for their concern mirroring more to my wrong. I choose to attack my parents, their choices in the past and their opinions not focusing on what they had to say. Deep down knowing the point they were conveying across, it was just not to my liking and as such I choose to attack them and not see justification in their concerns. The issues they had raised were all true but I decided   not to focus on that. Neither did I counter their arguments with facts to support my choices but rather attacked them, focusing on their past. The talk could not go on for I was not willing to take the facts and accept their position even though I knew it is true.

I used an Ad hominem fallacy for I decided not to focus on what my parents were trying to talk to me about even though I knew it was true. I attacked my parents deciding not to focus on the points they put out for their concerns but choosing to base on the fact that they too took alcohol and smoked which did not make them bad either. I did not base my objections on the reasons I want to keep my company rather I attacked my parents on the grounds they pointed as a negative of keeping that company. This corresponds to some Ad hominem fallacy- for I made an irrelevant attack on the arguer, suggesting the attack undermines the argument itself (Hitchcock, 2017). It was true my company did not go to school, they abused drugs and are suspected of robberies. My parents were genuinely concerned pointing out that our preferences are on different wavelengths that I may fall prey to that company.

The ability to detecting and avoidance of a fallacy can be regarded as a criteria of good reasoning. Detection of a fallacy is the first step in correcting it. In my argument with my parents, I detected a fallacy for I did not give a supporting argument for my disagreement but rather an I used an attack on their past to justify my disagreement. I invalidated my parents argument but my conclusion did not follow the premise.  I had to validate the premise to enable me identify and possibly correct my fallacy. I had to analyzed the thought process that made me reach my conclusion and it was very clear I was but just defending myself from something I did not want to accept. After the argument with my parents, I analyzed what they were talking about with an open mind, saw their point of concern and acknowledged that my reaction was unneccitated and wrong. I knew my company had some influence over me and my parents were just trying to look after me. In my argument, I did not counter their concerns with my reasons why I kept such company instead I retaliated with an attack on their past. This clearly indicated an Ad hominem fallacy in my argument. After knowing the fallacy, I used, I had to know why they had that talk with me, all this was in an attempt to correct my fallacy. Finally, after analyzing the argument and acknowledging that indeed I did not express myself using facts, but rather a fallacy, I had to go and have a proper talk to access the situation further and come up with a more actionable solution.

In order to avoid fallacy, I will be focused on a person’s reasoning and reasons rather than on their personal character or past. Not unless if their character truly affects their arguments of which my parents past habits of smoking and drinking does not impact their observations. It is therefore important that I look at my parents’ reasons for making their claims. After noting my parents’ points and analyzing them, the truth in them showed evidence for the claim they had. Nichols noted that to effectively avoid fallacies, it is mandatory to learn the different types of fallacies you are prone to (Nichols, et.al ,2014). I had to know that this was an Ad hominem fallacy for me to effectively avoid it next time. In future, I will have to analyze if the claims made are logically sound. I will have to know if my company can truly affect me in the sense my parents fear. After which, I will need to verify where my parents got their information about my company, if I find truth in them, then it will be important to know why my parents disagree of my company. This will enable me know the aim of the claims they made. It is important to know if I am wrong and my parents are right for me to be able to avoid the fallacy next time. What is key is understanding that arguments are a step by step reasoning from principles and facts, thus it is important that I look in careful detail at every step I took while arguing with my parents and make certain I fully understand why I made the step I did.

References

Hitchcock, D. (2017). Is there an argumentum ad hominem fallacy? In On Reasoning and Argument (pp. 409-419). Springer, Cham.

Nichols, J. W., & Bae, Y. H. (2014). EPR: Evidence and fallacy. Journal of Controlled Release, 190, 451-464.