Kory. I'm taking a political science class at the university. We just started studying socialism, and the professor says that socialism has actually worked in every country where it's been given a fair chance.
Noelia I cannot believe they teach socialism in the University. It's like teaching arson in a fireworks factory.
Kory. 1. Kory's political science professor says that socialism works.
(2. Systems that work are good systems.)
(C. Socialism is good)
Noelia. 1. Teaching socialism in the University is like teaching arson in a fireworks factory.
(2. Teaching arson in a fireworks factory would have bad consequences that look cool when viewed from a distance.)
(C. Socialism is bad.)
If someone here was arguing that socialism is okay, or that we don't know whether socialism is good or bad, that person would not bear burden of proof. However, we have one person arguing that socialism is good, and another arguing that it is bad, so both sides bear the burden of proof against the null hypothesis.
Evaluation:
Kory has a strong argument because he relies on the unimpeached authority of a political science professor.
Noelia commits the fallacy of false analogy. For her argument to work, "teaching socialism in a university" would have to be very similar to "teaching arson in a fireworks factory." Teaching arson in a fireworks factory might be bad because the arson lessons might set off the fireworks, and the resulting fire and explosion would be bad. Teaching socialism at a university might get students to go out and vote for socialist policies and candidates which, since socialism has tended to work in the past, would probably be good.
CORRECT (This is the best evaluation. I'm not saying it's perfect.)
Kory's authority argument might be a little weak, because it relies on an unnamed authority, but it's otherwise okay. In Noelia's analogy argument there are several unimportant differences, mostly related to explosions and the deliberate setting of fires. The fact that Socialists don't intend to destroy anything is an unimportant difference, since accidental fire starting is just as destructive as the deliberate kind. However, there don't seem to be any relevant similarities between teaching socialism and teaching arson. Arson involves starting a fire which can then be reasonably expected to destroy a building. Socialism involves the government acquisition of capital goods, such as factories and railroads, by compulsory purchase or outright seizure. Taking control of a capital good, even by force, cannot be reasonably expected to destroy that capital good. This difference is fatal to the analogy, so Noelia commits false analogy.
Use your browser's "back" key to return to your place in the reading.
This Site is Proudly
Hosted By:
