When writing goes wrong

So we have this article that we have been analyzing about Global Warming. Well, it's not quite as good as it looks. You see, the first time I read it, i didn't see much wrong with it. However, upon reading it more thoroughly, I found several logical fallacies hidden in his arguments.

First of all, we read paragraph 5, when he mentions an unusually hot summer that occurred last year to support his argument that the earth is warming up. However, how do we know what caused that hot spell? This is a good example of a cum hoc logical fallacy, because the writer is automatically assuming something that nobody knows for sure. Sure, it might be that the earth is getting hotter. But weather is not as predictable as people act like it is. This hot weather could be the consequence of sunspots, or altered ocean currents, or some other odd weather pattern that we will discover sometime in the next decade. Who knows?

Several times throughout the article, Lovelock mentions dramatic events that would occur if the earth warms up a relatively large amount. I find these arguments not as relevant as he thinks they are. There is no reason for the reader to believe that such events like "a four-degree rise in temperature" (par 4) or "a two-metre rise [in ocean levels]" (par 2) are even possible in the next century. The average global temperature rose only half of a Celsius degree between the years of 1900 and 1999 (see table 11.6. note: this website gets its statistics from NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy). At that rate, we have 800 years to worry. So really we don't have to worry, given that the average temperature will likely not simply continue in the same pattern--there are too many factors to take into account.

When Apocalyptical Logic Backfires

This is the second of my two posts dealing with James Lovelock's article about global warming, the former concerning his logos. When I began reading his article, I followed his facts and agreed with his points, but in about the span of a paragraph, he lost all my trust as a reader and interest in his article -- the results of terrible logical fallacies.

The main two that I noticed involved Hasty Generalizations and Post Hocs. The generalization hit home the hardest when Lovelock said:

"[Nuclear energy] fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway..." (Par. 14)

The argument was valid up until the last sentence. Purely from a logic standpoint, the claim that one-in-three die of cancer is quite eye-catching, but there is no source to acknowledge where these statistics came from. Also, the way Lovelock’s voice comes across is that he is quickly generalizing facts he's heard and just putting a number onto paper. This is not conducive to his persuasion.

This quote also has unsound pathos. No matter what side of the fence you're on, no one wants to hear that comment put so blatantly. Lovelock's comment on cancer is emotionally unsound, and is distracting to the reader to say the least. For me, all I remember is the cancer comment -- I don't even remember the logic that lead up to that.

Another fallacy I noticed involved a Post Hoc: whatever happens second is a result of whatever happened first. On multiple occasions, Lovelock suggests that the reason politicians aren't behind stunting global warming and nuclear energy is because it isn't what the lobbyists/Greens want. This is a premature statement, because we don't incorporate all the inner-workings of the political world. True, these are viable reasons, but until we look more in-depth, it is just merely an assumption put into the minds of the readers.

Between these last two posts, James Lovelock presents a very solid defense for nuclear energy. Nevertheless, even the strongest fortress can be broken if it is built on fallacies.

Logical Fallacy of the Common American Citizen

Further analyzing Steve Duin's article, I believe there is a general logical fallacy he addresses that the nation has built up - that we as a country are becoming "socialist." Obama was elected as the democratic candidate. He certainly has begun to alter the administration so that the central government has gained much power through several of his programs such as Health Care. But ideas are thrown out that because of Obama's actions, our nation is becoming socialist. As Duin says, we have developed a sense of skeptism towards the way our governemnt is run and we have turned a simple word such as community into a much scarier princple of socialism: "in the movement to turn "community" into a shameful code word for socialism, you feel the desperation of those who believe their political fortunes are best served by a forlorn and prolonged skepticism" (par. 13). Despite the fact that Obama is centralizing the federal government, it is virtually impossible for the United States to become socialist like its mother country, Great Britain. When people use this argument against Obama, they are just demonstrating their lack of knowledge.

Many people may refer to this notion (that the country is becoming communist) because they fear. The are unsure of the transition of one president to the next and they fear change from their complacent state. Citizens refer to this logical fallacy and their lack of knowledge becomes transparent.

The point is that Duin recognizes that citizens need this sense of community. Duin says we live in "an ear-plugged society in which everything we need -- including intimacy -- arrives via the iPhone" (par. 10). Overtime we have been separated by the influences and advances of technology. We need to revive a sense of unity, a sense of oneness over the individualism that has driven or economy to rock bottom. Because Obama is choosing to strengthen certain government programs, does not mean he is redefining the American ideals that this country was founded on! We must overlook the childish remarks people make when they do not fully understand the politics of Obama, especially when they talk out of fear. It is unethical and clearly a lack of persuasive rhetoric when the general public relies on manipulation to portray their view.

Society needs to be charitable about our opponent's intentions and we must establish trust. Although I may not agree with the political ideology of the author, I do understand his frustrations. I can see how polarization of the political parties is occurring in the United States. We can "agree to disagree" and establish intellectual humility but we cannot become accustomed to mistrusting citizens of the other political party. On this basis, politics will become more of a mess. The goal is the pursuit of truth and by discovering the truth, we can arrive at the best way to govern our country.