Today we take our first look at the study of nonsense with a discussion of logical fallacies - some familiar and well-worn, and some that I dare to invent and name like I'm a real bigshot scholar. We'll also talk about my expectations for good writing - which makes sense in a class about writing.
Readings for today include "On Bullshit" by Harry Frankfurt and the Informal Fallacies site on Texas State's philosophy page.
EDIT: I've apparently run into some errors and debates in my discussions of grammar here.
1. "To the store" is a prepositional phrase, NOT a dependent clause. Dependent clauses have a subject and verb but are nonetheless NOT complete sentences (like "When I went to the store").
2. There is apparently some debate about whether or not "when" is a preposition. Since it usually connects two clauses, it is typically considered a conjunction ("When I went to the store, I bought milk."). Since it modifies a verb, it is also often considered an adverb. Some argue that it is a preposition because it locates an action in time, but the debate remains ongoing. (English is weird.)
ALSO: RE: Eco's Fallacy - My man Wes from VGA pointed out that the terms apophenia and pareidolia could be used to describe what I call Eco's Fallacy here. But I'm sticking to my guns on this one. Both the other terms are used in psychological circles to describe delusion or hallucination-related phenomena: pareidolia typically refers only to visual hallucinations (like the canals of Mars) while apophenia refers to any erroneous connection between two things (including conspiracy theories). But both are used predominantly in psychology, as far as I can tell, and not as rhetorical activities. I don't think either have been applied to the phenomena we're encountering in this class - full-throated, seemingly-logical arguments for the connections common to, say, conspiracy theories, perceived spiritual contact or magical exercises, or the assumption that the stars govern our destinies. When apophenia is used to describe conspiracy theorists, it is usually employed to discuss their erratic behavior or cycles of belief; Eco's Fallacy would instead concentrate on the allure and contagiousness of conspiracy theories as persuasive arguments. There is overlap here - I'm extending "logical fallacy" to cover psychological and sociological tendencies beyond the mere granular fallacies we usually discuss (like those on the Texas State page), but it is all rooted in rhetoric, not delusion. People are persuaded by folks on the internet arguing that the earth is flat, because these arguments seem logical in some way. That's a rhetorical error, not a symptom of mental illness, and we should be able to discuss these errors in terms of their fallacious value. "Eco's Fallacy" stands.
