A Note on Fallacies

I wanted to choose an article that felt relevant to me and offered a variety of fallacies to analyze. While browsing the opinion section of The Guardian, the article titled: We are witnessing the destruction of science in America caught my attention. To note I've made an effort to remain unbiased and not include my personal views in this analysis and it is no way meant to reflect my personal opinion on the topic. 

In the article, Paul Darren Bienuiasz passionately explains the United States' role as a global leader in scientific discoveries and emphasizes the importance of public funding for science and ongoing research. He then argues that science in America is being destructed by the withholding of research funds, reduced graduate school admissions, job cuts, and the appointment of leaders who, he claims, neither value nor understand science. 

Fallacies in The Article 

1. Ad Hominem 

"Under the new administration, science leadership roles have been assigned to those without notable achievement, whose only real distinction is infamy. We would never have heard of these individuals were it not for their ludicrous pronoucements, poor science or outright quackery." 

This is a perfect example of the common communication fallicy ad hominem, the author attacks the opponents' personal characters and alleged incompetence rather than providing specific critques of their policies and decisions. This logic is unhelpful in advancing the argument. Addressing the evidence and reasoning behind the critiques would be more beneficial and convincing. Furthermore, the claims are unsupported and as Crusius (2016) notes, "...we should be suspicious of reasons without evidence, especially when it seems that evidence ought to be available. Unsupported reasons are often a sign of bad reasoning."

2. Slippery Slope

"If we continue the destructive course plotted by this administration, medicines that would otherwise have saved lives in future generation, will not be invented. Technologies that would have ensured future employment and prosperity in the US will not be devised." 

This statement is a classic slippery slope fallicy. The author suggests that the current administration's policies will inevitably lead to severe consequences: fewer technologies, widespread disease, and economic collapse. This is unethical because the author cannot predict the future and cannot claim for certain that these outcomes will occur. Crusius (2016) notes that, "A common flaw in arguing is stating the claim as absolute, or universally true, when in fact there may be exceptions or situations where it is not true." 

3. False Dilemma 

"Clearly, if we decline to nuture science, the lives of future Americans will be shorter, sicker and poorer."

This statement presents a stark either/or choice: fully fund science under its current structure, or face dramatic national and societal decline. Rather than exploring alternate possibilities, suggesting solutions, or offering evidence for the audience to consider, the author limits the argument to two extreme options when more options exist. 

References

Crusius, T., & Channell, C. (2016). The aims of argument: A text and reader (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.