Fulkerson’s argument is quite persuasive in showing that technical logic is not connected directly to skills of writing essays. It was strange to learn that many composition books provide wrong conceptions of logic and erroneous examples. Also I had thought I would be able to distinguish induction and deduction before I read this piece, and now I am not sure about it.
The article helps me to shape my view of better ways of teaching composition. I was in doubt whether to teach technical logic to students or not, and I start to think it is better not to do it. Stasis theory is good to teach analytical thinking upon problems. It is not bad for students to know what “syllogism” is, but now I think it is better to put more emphasis on practical advice and avoid unnecessary terms.
I liked the passages about correcting ‘fallacies’: “Hasty generalization obviously pairs with generalization, poor analogy with analogy, authority with false authority” (330). Comments on students’ papers often seem to deal with exactly such fallacies. Maybe one of the in-class activities for students can be discussion about how to make analogies not poor and on what authorities to rely etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I certainly agree that if one is going to cover logical fallacies in a composition course, it's wise to do more than just try to identify and classify them, which ultimately seems irrelevant unless you're going to test them on their ability to classify. As Irina suggests, in-class activities which involved discussing how to make analogies work, etc. can take the study of logical fallacies beyond the classification stage and into the realm of active thought.
Post a Comment