Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Nicholas Carr lists various experts in order to argue that today’s pervasive impact of the Internet on the intellectual culture of attention and concentration is more likely to be destructive and can have the most unexpected social and historical consequences. The tools of search engines, such as Google, are creating new anti-intellectual habits. Instead of trying to strain memory and remember, most people prefer to instantly receive answers to their queries from the Web. Although many perceive the Internet as an outstanding technological advancement, it gradually leads to memory atrophy and perverts the very process of thinking, memorizing mentally constructing meanings, and logical circuits. Thinking becomes fundamentally more superficial, fragmented, clip-like, and primitive, and children do not even suspect that earlier thinking was somehow different. Therefore, Nicholas Carr’s approach of providing a list of experts in support of his original statement starting from Seneca to Merzenich, is an example of argumentation fallacy of appeal to authority.
Nicholas Carr’s primary writing technique is to refer to the experts in the field of intelligence and the internet. The journal claims: “The Roman philosopher Seneca may have put it best 2,000 years ago” (Carr, 2010, par. 3). In other words, the author begins his argumentation with an appeal to authority, which is one of the logical fallacies. Argumentum ad verecundiam is a type of contesting arguments, where the proposal to consider a statement as correct because such a narrative was made by some source considered authoritative (Woods & Walton, 2019). The misconception is that the truth or falsity of a claim may not depend on the opinion of an authoritative source used. In addition, an authoritative source may be mistaken in conclusions, even based on the correct assumptions (Woods & Walton, 2019). Turning to authority, on the other hand, is an important part of informal logic. Since it is impossible to be an expert in all areas of modern knowledge, one often has to rely on the opinion of authorities in these areas.
The author’s appeal to authority fallacy can be observed in his references towards modern professionals. It is stated that: “In an article published in Science last year, Patricia Greenfield, a leading developmental psychologist, reviewed dozens of studies on how different media technologies influence our cognitive abilities” (Carr, 2010, par. 6). Such a failure also occurs in the case of appeal to the opinion of an authoritative source who is not an expert in the field to which a particular argument relates. An analysis of such examples is necessary for the process of identifying the criteria that determine the fallacy of argumentation. It can more clearly define the basis of empirical material selected for research, according to the principle of its correspondence to a pragmatic goal. Thus, in conditions of naturally rational argumentation, the determining factor in assessing the acceptability of arguments is the context of interpretation. Therefore, it is natural that the fundamental moment for researchers involved in the study of the systematization of argumentation errors is the identification of the context within which arguments are advanced.
Nicholas Carr’s appeal to authority technique is prone to lack objectivity because all of the selected representatives of authority are in support of the main statement. However, the journal on the hiring issues among graduates uses to appeal to authority with representation to both sides of the discussion. It is stated that: “They have an abundance of what are known as “soft skills,” which make them prime candidates for success” (Wente, 2013, par. 2). In order to present the opposite opinion, she writes: “Employers have also become extremely risk-averse about new hires – another factor that stacks the deck against the twentysomethings” (Wente, 2013, par. 9). Although the author seems to be opposed to soft skills, she presented a conflicting point of view, which indicates objectivity. In the case of Carr, there is no authority representative who would claim that the internet does not affect intelligence or improve the latter. The relevance of the arguments cannot be estimated based on pragma-dialectical criteria, and it is important that the author uses the claim as part of a critical discussion. Correspondence of the argument to the syllogistic form ad verecundiam, without taking into account the propositional content, primarily the context of interpretation, cannot be a sufficient basis for an unambiguous understanding of the argumentative move as erroneous. The criteria adequate to determine the fallacy of the arguments should be the context of the interpretation of the participants in the argumentative discourse and the direct correlation of the argument put forward with the propositional content.
In conclusion, Nicholas Carr fails to remain objective and build clear arguments because he actively uses appeal to authority without presenting an opposing opinion. Firstly, he begins his writing with Seneca and the quote regarding a lack of focus, which sets the Greek philosopher as the initial authority. Secondly, Nicholas Carr repetitively refers to modern experts in relevant fields, such as psychology, in order to advance his understanding of the internet and intelligence. Thirdly, Carr’s appeal to authority is more prominent and false because he does not present opposing professionals’ thoughts on the issue. The appeal to authority technique can be observed in Wente’s work, but she provides two sides of the argument. Therefore, one needs to avoid excessive use of ad verecundiam and present both supporting and opposing thoughts on an issue.
References
Carr, N. (2010). Does the internet make you dumber? The Wall Street Journal. Web.
Wente, M. (2013). Why can’t today’s graduates get hired? The Globe and Mail. Web.
Woods, J., & Walton, D. (2019). Fallacies: Selected papers 1972-1982. Foris Publications.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.