Fallacies

Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments; accordingly they are not persuasive. It is a form of reasoning. Fallacies are normally classified into:
1. Rhetorical Fallacies
2. Logical Fallacies

Under the Rhetorical Fallacies or also known as Hermeneutic Fallacies, they are also classified into the following:
1. Incorrect obversion
2. Incorrect Conversion
3. The fallacy of accent
4. The fallacy of amphibology

1.Incorrect Obversion is the change of the original proposition from the affirmative to negative or vice versa without changing the meaning of the original intention.
For example:
All the shirts that are stock in the bodega are genuine.
Not a single shirt stock in the bodega is a fake.

The fallacy of incorrect obversion is committed when the meaning of the original proposition is change in change the proposition from affirmative to negative or vice versa.
For example:
All the shirts stock in the bodega is genuine.
Not a single shirt stock in the bodega is genuine.

2. Incorrect Conversion is the transposition of the subject and predicate of the proposition without changing the meaning of the original proposition.
For example:
All scientific calculators can solve mathematical problems.
Some mathematical problems can be solved by scientific calculators.

The fallacy of incorrect conversion will took place when there are mistake in the distribution of terms. When the meaning of the original proposition is change fallacy of incorrect conversion is then committed.
For Example:
All scientific calculators can solve mathematical problems.
All mathematical problems can be solved by using scientific calculators.

3. The fallacy of accent is committed when the meaning of a proposition is misinterpreted on account of a misplaced accent or emphasis on a term.
For example:
We should be merciful to our neighbors.

An emphasis on the word neighbors may imply that we may not be merciful to those who are not our neighbors.

4. The fallacy of amphibology arises on account of a faulty grammatical construction of the sentence which gives rise to miscomprehension. The use of ambiguous pronouns and of dangling participial phrases often gives rise to this fallacy.
For example:
The notorious criminal had been arrested by the policeman who robbed the bank.

As to the second classification of fallacies, The Logical Fallacies are errors in inferring. They are not merely errors of interpretation. Rhetoricians and Logicians classify logical fallacies into:
1. Formal Fallacies
2. Material Fallacies

Formal Fallacies are those that arise from the violations of the rules of the syllogism. Any violation of these rules gives rise to a mistake in inference. Formal Fallacies are committed in categorical syllogisms, in disjunctive syllogisms, and in hypothetical syllogism. Formal Fallacies are further classified into:

Material Fallacies are those that arise, not from the violations of rules of the syllogism, but from the confusion in the connotation or denotation of the terms used or from a faulty assumption of facts. In material fallacies, the rules of the syllogism are apparently well observed; but the mistake of inference is involved in the matter dealt with. Material Fallacies are further classified into:
1. Fallacies of equivocation
2. Fallacies of presumption

Issue: Charter Change

I have come to a decision in negative. There is no need for charter change. Let us start knowing first the present form of government that we have. It can be said that the Philippine government is a representative democracy, a unitary and presidential government with separation of powers. Democratic governments are further classified into: Direct and Indirect Democracy. The Philippines is one with an indirect democracy or one which that involves the selection of government official by the people being represented.

If we try to look into the manifestation of our democratic and republican state such as the existence of bill of rights; the observance of the rule of majority; the principle that ours is a government of laws and not of men; the presence of election through popular will; We could say that the underlying principle of democracy is freedom, that the citizens can have their share of freedom. It is not only limited to certain people but it equally applies to all so long as this freedom is not being abused. It is more of an assurance that the will of the people are being followed rather than the private desires or motives of the government officials as shown in the bill of rights. And also we could prevent irregularities or any grave abuses made by persons in authority because of the principle of the separation of powers and the system of check and balance.

I could say that our present form of government does not have any defect in running our government. The problem only arises on the person representing the people and dispensing their governmental function. The predicament is not the system itself but the persons who are administering it. That is why I am confuse, is there really a need for charter change? Would the new system of government gives an assurance that our country will be more progressive? Is it really the solution of the political crisis? Or could the problem be the officials running the system not the system itself? Why are they changing the system? Could it be for the promotion of the general welfare or the promotion of a certain public officer? Could our freedom, as given under the present government system, be suppressed under the new system? What are the possible assurances that the new system can give to the citizens?

All this confusion has come into a decision based on the manifestation of a democratic and republican state. As Article II of section 1 our constitution provides that the Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Clearly it shows that the supreme authority to govern dwells in the Filipino people. I think that our system of government is no longer functioning well because of the conflict exists between in abusing the powers by the government official and the freedom of the people to indirectly govern our country. So the proper thing to do is to remove the root of the problem, the cause why our present system is not functioning well, we should not resolved it by amending our constitution because it would just entail unnecessary appropriation of funds that is needed before its implementation and as a result it would have a great effect on our economic stability. What we need to concrete more is on how we could establish a public office as a public trust.

Akbayan vs Aquino - digest

Akbayan vs Aquino – July 16 2008

FACTS:
Petition for mandamus and prohibition was filed by the petitioners, as congresspersons, citizens and taxpayers, requesting respondents to submit to them the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA).

Petitioner emphasize that the refusal of the government to disclose the said agreement violates there right to information on matters of public concern and of public interest. That the non-disclosure of the same documents undermines their right to effective and reasonable participation in all levels of social, political and economic decision making.

Respondent herein invoke executive privilege. They relied on the ground that the matter sought involves a diplomatic negotiation then in progress, thus constituting an exception to the right to information and the policy of full disclosure of matters that are of public concern like the JPEPA. That diplomatic negotiation are covered by the doctrine of executive privilege.

Issue:
Whether or not the petition has been entirely rendered moot and academic because of the subsequent event that occurred?

Whether the information sought by the petitioners are of public concern and are still covered by the doctrine of executive privilege?

Held:
On the first issue, the Supreme Court ruled that t]he principal relief petitioners are praying for is the disclosure of the contents of the JPEPA prior to its finalization between the two States parties,” public disclosure of the text of the JPEPA after its signing by the President, during the pendency of the present petition, has been largely rendered moot and academic.
The text of the JPEPA having then been made accessible to the public, the petition has become moot and academic to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of the “full text” thereof.
The petition is not entirely moot, however, because petitioners seek to obtain, not merely the text of the JPEPA, but also the Philippine and Japanese offers in the course of the negotiations.

Moving on to the second issue, The Supreme Court Ruled that Diplomatic negotiations, therefore, are recognized as privileged in this jurisdiction, the JPEPA negotiations constituting no exception. It bears emphasis, however, that such privilege is only presumptive. For as Senate v. Ermita holds, recognizing a type of information as privileged does not mean that it will be considered privileged in all instances. Only after a consideration of the context in which the claim is made may it be determined if there is a public interest that calls for the disclosure of the desired information, strong enough to overcome its traditionally privileged status.
The court adopted also the doctrine in PMPF v. Manglapus, Wherein petitioners were seeking information from the President’s representatives on the state of the then on-going negotiations of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement. The Court denied the petition, stressing that “secrecy of negotiations with foreign countries is not violative of the constitutional provisions of freedom of speech or of the press nor of the freedom of access to information.

3rd Presidential Debate

I am sure that the 3rd Presidential Debate between Senator Barrack Obama and Senator Jhon McCain were watch not only by the citizens of the United States but also by the whole world. In a Presidential Debate it is expected that both sides wants to convince and persuade their constituents that they are fitting of becoming the President in their country. It is also likely to happen that the both parties would throw negative views on each other in order to make influences. But what is important in a debate is on how the parties deliver their proposition in an ethical way, which means that standards must be observed and applied.

Talking about the setting of the Debate, it had a debate moderator, two speakers representing their respective parties, the republican and the democrat, and lastly the presence of the audience. So the fundamental components of a debate are present. Now moving on how the speakers had delivered their propositions and their response to the questions asked by the moderator. In making a response to the question, neither of the speakers interrupts while the other was explaining his stand. Each speaker took turns in making a statement on the query. They showed great respect to each other.

Notwithstanding that it was a Presidential debate and as always it is expected of the speakers to bring their propositions in a manner that is convincing to the people, clearly the academic standards in a debate was shown.

ARGUMENTATION!

As sited from wikipedia, Argumentation embraces the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion; studying rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings. Argumentation is concerned primarily with reaching conclusions through logical reasoning, that is, claims based on premises. Although including debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions, argumentation theory also encompasses eristic dialog, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal.

This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during the process of arguing. Argumentation is used in law, for example in trials, in preparing an argument to be presented to a court, and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence. Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally.

We also have to observe the key components of argumentation which are the following:

First we need to understand and identify the arguments and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue; second, identify the premises form which conclusions are derived; third, determine who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evident why his position merits acceptance; lastly one must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attcj the reasons of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any logical fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his arguments.