In this journal entry I will provide an analysis of the fallacies of relevance that exert the most influence on my decision making, and an analysis of the issues involved. I will discuss how I will avoid the pitfalls of fallacies of relevance in my decision making. I will also discuss an example and analysis of an organization making a poor decision due to the fallacy of relevance and provide a recommendation on how the organization could avoid similar mistakes in the future.
By learning to look for fallacies in my own decision making processes, can strengthen my ability to evaluate the arguments made, read, and heard. My goal is to look critically at arguments and their fallacies to help in my decision making processes. Ad hominem and tu quoque are two fallacies that I sometimes use to influence a decision. The definition of these two fallacies is the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem (“against the person”) and tu quoque (“you, too!”) fallacies focus my attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually “You shouldn’t believe So-and-So’s argument.” The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque) (The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, n.d.). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent’s argument. To avoid this I need to stay focused on reasoning, rather than on personal character.
It does not matter if you think Monsanto is evil. Some consumers think genetically modified food is safe. If Monsanto has anything to do with it, it must be evil. That seems to be the prevailing opinion of the gigantic biotech company. Following that logic, if they produce corn or soybeans or another crop that has been genetically modified, those too must be evil. That is the reasoning that lures consumers away from science and towards denial. Making the...