“The likelihood of that happening is about one in 100,” Follow

The issue there is the implication that those "consequences" will be far more widespread than what is reality. "No one should own a stove because just picture a basket of kittens with their faces burnt off, mewling in agony" isn't a appropriate argument just because I don't have any actual stats on kitten-burning and so my "description of the possible consequences" should stand in lieu of anything actually useful.

Or kittens. Or in Joph's case, rabbits.

What sucks is "Think of the WHORES!" doesn't hold quite the same sway.

Except that argument was made in support of a position in opposition to the use of nuclear power. His argument is "weak" because he lists off consequences of nuclear power without comparing them to the consequences of the most likely replacement for nuclear power (coal). His argument is "fallacious" because he relies on emotionally laden imagery to sway people to his position rather than the actual statistics.



Statistics are, but he didn't actually use statistics to make his argument. I don't recall any hard numbers or facts or sources used with his argument. He just talked about the horrible effects of radiation without quantifying the rate or likelihood of those effects at all.




He's appealing to emotion. That is *always* a fallacious argument. That doesn't mean that it's not effective, but it's still fallacious. If you want to make a strong argument, you should include facts and data which support your position. If all you do is talk about how horrible the effects of something are, your argument is fallacious and those you're speaking to should rightly dismiss that argument for exactly that reason.



So you just jumped into the middle of this in order to insist that an argument based solely on an appeal to emotion isn't really fallacious? I guess I just kinda have to scratch my head on that one given that such arguments are pretty universally accepted as fallacies. I mean, you're free to insist that the entire rest of the argument studying world is wrong and you're right, but I'm not sure what that gets you.



Yeah. You. He. Whatever.

I was listening to a chap from the British Foreign office being interviewed yesterday concerning the events in the ME. He said that the big problem with the Foreign policy of most western countries these days is that it is concieved and implemented by people, the majority of whom have never worked or spent any real time abroad, and their only experience of other peoples countries is short vacations or occasional business trips. To make up for that lack of hands on immersive knowledge (of countries, cultures, customs etc, they fall back on the advice that is availiable to them through statistics and reports which are usually provided by analysts who invariably have even less real knowledge and experience of the area that they are analyzing.

He said that there is absolutely no substitute for the knowledge gained from actually experiencing the world around you and decisions based upon that knowledge will always be more valid than ones made from the isolated position of an office or conference room thousands of miles away.

I agree.




I can almost picture the wagons being circled as the Kiwi gets all uppity.

Huh?




The paragraph I quoted and called an appeal to emotion is a textbook example of the fallacy. WTF?


And in case you're curious, Paulsol's comment about that not being about emotions was in reference to an earlier statement (in a different thread in fact) about how liberals take positions based on emotion and not rational thought. I honestly don't remember who made that statement in the other thread at the moment, but I find it incredibly ironic that Paul choose to quote that and then proceeded to perfectly prove the statement true (assuming we're putting a "liberal" label on him of course).

Christ almighty Kachi, yes, it's a textbook fallacious appeal to emotion. You're overreaching in your attempts to one-up gbaji. He's correct this time.

Don't worry, he'll say something silly again in 12-24 hours. Then by all means, go after him.

Edited, Mar 18th 2011 10:57pm by Eske

No, it actually wasn't, because there was content to the appeal (and as if I actively attempt to one-up gbaji-- trust me, it just happens). The fallacy of appeal to emotion is that there is no relevant argument being made; that the argument is solely asking someone to "have a heart." For example, arguing against abortion with, "Killing babies is wrong! Think of that poor child's stolen future!" Conversely, "By killing a fetus, you are taking away that child's future opportunity for happiness," is not a particularly GOOD argument, but neither is it a fallacious appeal to emotion. It is a valid assertion that is relevant to the debate.

This is the way the fallacy works, and my only interest in pointing it out is out of pedantry and boredom.



My mistake. As you know I often skip your posts, and I assumed from the context of paulsol's post: "And that is not about emotions. That is what happens." that you accused him of making an appeal to emotion in the prior post. I see that you didn't; however, that doesn't change the fact that the quoted part is not a fallacious appeal to emotion. It is a description of events with the implication that the quality, rather than the quantity, of deaths of one offsets the other.



No, what Paul said is more analogous to the example I already gave:



Paul's argument is an appeal to emotions in the context of quality of life, not a plea to be merciful. That is a valid argument; not a fallacy.

If anyone still doubts this, I suggest you do a bit of reading around. I'm tired of arguing something that is pretty well explained by the most basic sources.

Seeing as how we've been using Nuclear power for energy for over 50 years, and there have been exactly 3 serious accidents to date, and to be fair only 1 of those was extremely serious, the benefits have far outweighed the risks to date.