Most people thing divorce is rationale and there are what I call “cookie cutter” results or at a minimum very predictable results. I have not found this to be the case and if it were, we could just input the facts to a computer and the computer would “spit out” an answer. What divorces are often based on is applied logic and rehetoric. Unfortunately logic and rhetoric are subject to fallacies. You will recognize some of the logic and rehetoric fallacy techniques used in divorce cases.
As Wikepedia states in the following paragraphs: “A fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.
Fallacies can be used to win arguments regardless of the merits. Among such devices, discussed in more detail below, are: "ignoring the question" to divert argument to unrelated issues using a red herring, making the argument personal (argumentum ad hominem) and discrediting the opposition's character, "begging the question" (petito principi), the use of the non-sequitor, false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc), bandwagoning (everyone says so), the "false dilemma" or "either-or fallacy" in which the situation is oversimplified, "card-stacking" or selective use of facts, and "false analogy". Another favorite device is the "false generalization", an abstraction of the argument that shifts discussion to platitudes where the facts of the matter are lost. There are many, many more tricks to divert attention from careful exploration of a subject.
Fallacies can generally be classified as informal (premises fail to support the proposed conclusion, but the argument is structured properly) or formal (logical structure is flawed).The taxonomy of material fallacies is based on that of Aristotle's body structure Oganon (Sophistici elenchi).
• Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions.
• Converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule.
• Irrelevant conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly.
• Affirming the consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.
• Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.
• Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion.
• Fallacy of false cause or non sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."
• Fallacy of many questions or loaded question: groups more than one question in the form of a single question.
• Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
• Same Team Fallacy: A case where an arguer knows the main criticisms of their argument, and then asserts that the counter argument should have the same criticisms (based on a genetic fallacy of its arguer). It is often characterized by the fallacy of dismissal after the distinctions and differences are brought out, and the fallacy of repetition thereafter.
Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words. They are generally classified as follows:
• Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses, e.g. in a syllogism, the middle term being used in one sense in the major and another in the minor premise, so that in fact there are four not three terms.
• Connotation fallacies occur when a dysphemistic word is substituted for the speaker's actual quote and used to discredit the argument. It is a form of attribution fallacy.
• Argument by innuendo involves implicitly suggesting a conclusion without stating it outright. For example, a job reference that says a former employee "was never caught taking money from the cash box" In this example the overly specific nature of the innuendo implies that the employee was a thief, even though it does not make (or justify) a direct negative statement.
• Amphiboly is the result of ambiguity of grammatical structure.
• Fallacy of composition
• Division, the converse of the preceding, arguing from a property of the whole, to each constituent part.
• Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosum - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.
• Accent, which occurs only in speaking and consists of emphasizing the wrong word in a sentence. e.g., "He is a fairly good pianist", according to the emphasis on the words, may imply praise of a beginner's progress or insult of an expert pianist.
• Figure of Speech, the confusion between the metaphorical and ordinary uses of a word or phrase. Fallacy of misplaced concreteness, identified by Whitehead in his discussion of metaphysics, this refers to the reification of concepts which exist only in discussion.”
As always, you can post any comment about this blog or Divorce Mediation, or just Mediation by following the directions at the right in the green column or at the bottom of this website. Learn more about mediation at http://www.center-divorce-mediation.com/ WM (244) 1/24/12