Their comments would have been welcome if they were honest and holistic assessments of Bersih 2.0. It would have been nice to see the use of sound reasoning. Instead we have faulty argument upon faulty argument, in article upon article.
This is regrettable not just for the dubious ethics with which personal political interests are advanced. It is also unfortunate because the trusting reader becomes confused as to what is true or false and becomes prone to accepting questionable statements and conclusions as truthful.
Misleading arguments and suggestions should not be left standing without a challenge. Here I show seven types of faulty arguments that have been made against Bersih 2.0 and comment on specific examples. It is hoped that the reader would be able to identify them on his own in the future, and be inspired to debate the critic to discover the truth or the best way forward for a given policy..."
The seven types of faulty arguments are summarized as follows:
A. The middle ground (on Anas Zubedy and Dr. Chandra Muzaffar)
B. Exaggeration (on Dr. Chandra Muzaffar and Anas Zubedy)
C. Scaremongering (on Dr. Chandra Muzaffar)
D. Dishonest or incomplete assessment (on Ahirudin Attan/Rocky's Bru)
E. False comparison (on Dr. Chandra Muzaffar)
F. False association (on Dr. Mahathir)
G. Biased citation of studies to support an argument (on Dr. Chandra Muzaffar)
Interested to read more?
No comments:
Post a Comment