Fallacy Summary and Application Paper

Fallacy Summary and Application Paper

Critical Thinking: Strategies in Decision Making MGT 350

Abstract

In my paper I will identify and define three fallacies. I will explain their significance in relation to the Critical Thinking process and discuss their application to Decision Making. Lastly, I will provide examples to illustrate each of the chosen fallacies.

Fallacy of Personal Attack

Critical Thinking is a method used especially for problem resolution, it involves listening to all sides and the careful consideration of every angle of a problem, then deciding what is relevant and what is not and then rendering a thoughtful judgment. One of the significant factors of critical thinking is the ability to summarize the complex ideas clearly with fairness to all sides. According to Bassham, Irwin, Nardone and Wallace (2002) logical fallacies are arguments that contain mistakes in reasoning and can be hindrances to the Critical Thinking process. In the work of Bassham et al. (2002) fallacies of relevance are fallacies that occur because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Personal Attack or Ad Hominem is a fallacy of relevance and occurs when we reject a person's argument or claim by attacking the person rather than the person's argument or claim.

As the text pointed out, just because an individual may have a less than desirable character it does not mean that they may not have a valid argument. The thing to remember is to focus on the argument itself and not the person. If the argument is valid, the facts will speak for themselves. Recently I have noticed an example of this fallacy playing out in the news. Michael Moore, the film maker of "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Bowling for Columbine" has received his fair share of criticism. He has been attacked personally as being non-patriotic and fanatical. What is odd is that some of the individuals attacking Mr. Moore personally have not even seen his documentary to even analyze his argument.

In essence his critics are saying, "Michael Moore is bad, and therefore his argument must be bad too." Again, it's important to give everyone the opportunity to present their argument and analyze the facts objectively using the Critical Thinking process. The end result will hopefully be a more informed decision or conclusion.

Fallacy of Appeal to Pity

Bassham et al. (2002) states the fallacy of appeal to pity occurs when an arguer attempts to evoke feelings of pity or compassion, when such feelings, however understandable, are not logically relevant to the arguer's conclusion. Our class touched on this briefly this past week in the classroom environment. From what I recall, Maria and I acknowledged that emotions and biases can be barriers to Critical Thinking. Another student in the class advised that he used his emotions and biases to guide his decisions frequently. I disagree with this method for one main reason. I think that individuals tend to be less rational when they succumb to emotional appeals. This in turn can lead to faulty conclusions and eventually poor decision making.

Let us imagine that I manage a team of employees and I assign a very important task to Joe Smith. I express to Joe that the task is imperative to the successful launch of our new product and advise him that the task must be completed in two weeks. The deadline comes and