Mistaking the Person for the Argument
A topic that I found very interesting and useful is “mistaking the person for the argument”. Mistaking the person for the argument according to Critical Thinking by Richard L. Epstein is “a mistake to reject an argument solely because of who said it” (98). The definition means that the argument is completely ignored just because of the person or group that said that argument. The complication with that is the argument is being placed a side not because it is good or bad but just because of who is saying it and it is not fair. The person saying the argument should not have an effect on the argument, the argument should be judged for itself. For example, at my job we are fundraising money for our local hospital for the children’s miracle network once I had this respond after asking,
- “Would you like to donate a dollar to Salinas Memorial Hospital for the Children’s Miracle Network?”
- They say “No, do you know the money is kept by the corporations and not given to the hospitals? “
The customer is making an argument that money should not be donated to me because I represent a corporation that is going to keep the money. The truth is that the corporation I work for actually matches what we fundraise and donates as well. But that person t is just ignoring my claim to donate money because I represent a corporation.
Hi Mely,
ReplyDeleteI also think this is a very interesting topic. I think mistaking the person for the argument also has to do with a persons credibility. Because for me, as soon as I listen to an argument I ask myself if the person making the argument knows what he or she is talking about. For example, I would not listen to a little kid try and tell me how to drive a car. For all I know the kid is a NASCAR driver, however my instincts would just tell me that a kid does not know to drive a car. Yes, it is very judgmental, but that's just the way it is for me. I have not yet read this part of the book so I might be wrong about all this, so don't think im just crazy talking. haha. Anyways, this was a very interesting post!