How Arguments Can Be Persuasive Despite Being a Fallacy
People are flooded with multiple arguments from different sources on a daily basis whether they realise it or not. In this essay I will discuss how arguments can be persuasive despite being based on fallacy with reference to the idea of critical thinking and the demise of critical thinking, the use of hidden premise and agenda, the use of logical indicators within arguments, the use of general terminology and inductive and deductive reasoning. It will also discuss the idea of arguments that reflect logic but compromises truth. Using Hitler, The Media, Marketing and Children as examples, this essay will look at how fallacious arguments have been persuasive in multiple scenarios throughout history and into the modern every-day life.
Hitler used fallacious arguments to persuade his followers to do many inhumane things during his Nazi dictatorship. Hitler was able to persuade a whole country to think like him and to act on his own personal beliefs, one being that the Jewish race were lesser humans that the Germans. Hitler believed that Germans were superior and pure and needed to be preserved by ruling out intermarriage and liquidating and exterminating those who had no place in the “master race”. Hitler declared that the Aryans (the Germans) were solely responsible for the advances to their culture and that the Jews wanted to destroy everything they had achieved. By radically comparing Jewish traditional belief systems against the philosophies of Aryan primacy the Nazis achieved expansion and strength of the idea of anti-Semitism that had already existed, whilst proclaiming Germans as the elitists of evolution. The use of generalized terminology is another way that Hitler’s argument was persuasive. The word “animal” was repeatedly used during Hitler’s regime, but was never clearly defined. When this word was used regarding the Jews, words such as disease-ridden, dirty, wild, and dangerous were repeatedly used to support the word. Hitler also used this term “animal” when referring to the Germans, but instead imagery such as wolf or “loyal dog” were used to shape its purpose. This is an example of Ad Hominem fallacy and also deductive reasoning. These are examples of Ad Hominem and appeal to emotion. By shaping his own definition of what it is the be an “animal” was and what it was to be human, Elias Canetti explains Hitler as “the despot who reduces men to animals and only manages to rule them by regarding them as belonging to a lower species reduces to vermin all who do not qualify even to be ruled and ends by destroying them by the millions. Hitler also used used terms such as “freedom” “pride” “independence” and “integrity” which created a sense of pride in his followers, these are very generalized terms but are a technique that he used to persuade called the “generalization fallacy”. Hitler’s argument reflected logic, but compromised truth as seen in his quote “Because they are different, they have to be removed”. Yes, the Jewish race were different to the Germans, so there is a certain truth in that, but the conclusion being that they have to be exterminated because of this difference is based on fallacious argument. Inductive reasoning was used in Hitler’s premise that Aryans were responsible for advances in their culture and because the Jews wanted to destroy it, the conclusion is they must be abolished and wiped out. Hitler also used false dilemma in his argument by only presenting the audience with two options, think like me, or you’re the enemy, and argues that they must choose one or the other. Hitler was not very personable, and he was often quoted as being almost hypnotic, gruff and trance-like in his speech delivery. This “hypnotic ability” is another way that he would persuade his listeners into doing what he said and thinking like he thought. In the moments that they were in a hypnotic state, he could say lots of fallacious things that the listeners would believe. According to Despina Stratigakos, “a new domesticity was fabricated for Adolf Hitler, one that was in direct contrast to the very public identity of Nazi statesman.” This was needful to offset his harsh and abrupt public profile as his real private life offered no family or civilised attributes to portray him as first man and father of his nation. By dehumanising the Jewish people, and redefining the meaning of “animal” along with his ability to elevate the Germans, along with his use of generalisation, inductive reasoning, false dilemma, and fabrication, Hitler was able to persuade his nation to abolish millions of Jewish people all to appeal to his selfish personal agenda.
The media thrives on the use of fallacious argument to persuade its audience. In 1988 John McMurtry wrote an article regarding fallacy in the media. In his article, John discusses “the parable of the logical dictator” in relation to what and who is controlling the media and what it communicates. Arguments in the media are formulated to persuade the public to believe the agendas decided by the “logical dictator”. This logical dictator can take many forms, the Government, a celebrity, a religion. This raises the idea of critical thinking, and the demise of it in society. Critical thinking allows you to be able to decide between fact and opinion and distinguish between sound and faulty reasoning. The media can portray any argument, and it takes a critical thinker to access the information and make a logical decision based on the facts. Eleanor Kiernan identifies an argument as a persuasive devise with a series of premises to support a conclusion. For example, New Idea magazine had the heading “Prince Harry and Meghan Markle split” making it sound as though they were divorced, when it was actually talking about them moving away from Prince William and Kate. With ambiguous news headlines, it is easy for an argument to persuade the reader into believing an untruth. Kiernan describes this as ‘sponge-style thinking” where the listener is not actively thinking about the topic, but just taking what you hear as truth. The media also uses logical indicators or cue words for example, therefore, because and given that such and such. Fake news is news that is intentionally based on false information to sway listeners or readers into believing certain things. How does the media keep churning out “Fake news”? One reason is the demise of critical thinking. In general humans are ineffective in identifying contrived information. People show a fundamental truth-basis that assumes the information they are hearing is truth. Logical fallacy plays a part in how the media persuades its audience and if the listener is not making decisions based on critical thinking, and instead being a sponge that believes anything they hear, they intrinsically believe the information. All they need to do is make a logical argument based on some facts with some statistics thrown in and a few cue words, and it sounds like an argument worth agreeing with. As Friedrich Nietzsche once said “there are no facts, only interpretations”. We can see that the media uses ambiguity, relies on the demise of critical thinking, and sponge-style thinking, uses cue words and premise and conclusion along with logical fallacies in its delivery.
Marketing also has the ability to persuade using arguments based on fallacy. One example is a charity in the shopping centre trying to persuade people to stop and donate money. The charity pleads to emotions by using heart breaking images, emotive language and propaganda which are all part of the “appeal to pity fallacy”. The employees of these charities use words like “imagine your children not having food, having to walk days for dirty water and eating out of bins” and then use this as a method to get your donations. If you say no, they can say things like “aren’t you interested in helping these poor young dying children”. This plays on the emotion of the listener as it can make you feel as though you don’t care, and this can move a person to consider the donation even if they don’t want to or can’t afford to. Marketing can also misuse statistics such as 33% more in your packet of toothpaste. This makes a consumer think that they are getting a great deal and they better buy quickly, or everything will be sold. This misuse of statistics is a way that marketing persuades a consumer to buy a product, but it is based on misleading information or empty statistics that have no real meaning. Another way that marketing uses fallacy for persuasive argument, is using celebrities to endorse a product or a doctor to endorse a medication or toothpaste. This is the fallacy “appeal to higher authority” which can lead to deductive logic using quick facts that seem true, mixed with statistics and doctors promoting the product. There is a standard of ethics that marketing companies have to adhere to, but this falls on a spectrum where as long as elements of truth are in the advertisement then it can still fit the rules. The three dominant principles of ethics in advertising are obey the law, act in your self-interest and comply with the ethics. Marketing can be persuasive even when misusing statistics, using celebrities as “appeal to authority” and emotional language to persuade a consumer to buy a product.
Overall, arguments have the ability to be persuasive regardless of their content or factual validity. Arguments can be based on fallacies and still have the ability to persuade. How the argument is presented, and the techniques used within the argument, can make them persuasive despite not being grounded in truth.
