This is an article that it initiates plus a series of summaries in the philosophy area, of this time however, situated in
the scope of the philosophy of the argument. In this series we will go to see some “tricks” of argument used with the objective to win a quarrel and if to overlap to excessively exactly without having conhcimento sufficient for in such a way. In the present summary, we will go to demystify a sufficiently common trick (seen in abundance even though in the Shvoong), and that is defined by algunsestudiosos of the rhetoric (such as: Chaim Perelman, Aristotle and plutarco) as: “
authority”. But what it would be this trick? How it is developed and as if it applies the authority? The authority is the version occidental person of a trick already identified by Sun Tzu in the book “the Art of the War” as “to bark high more”. This trick if relates to all that situation where in a quarrel when seeing depleted all the arguments on the part of that it tries to defend a position (although to be in the contrahand of the logic), this person interrupt the debate affirming that its knowledge (although maken a mistake) is most correct due to supposed authority of who pronounces this argument. I go to give some concrete examples that illustrate what I want to say. In the first example, I cite the case of an author of the Shvoong that, when having its arguments struck for me to the exhaustion in a quarrel, appeals the authority saying that “I am a little boy”, and that therefore this difference of age already would confer to the carrier of such argument the authority necessary to disqualify me as interlocutor. Another example can be seen in quarrels in which the citizen argues, for example (in way to the debate of ideas, and therefore incabivelmente in that hour) that he is a Doctor, and that therefore its knowledge more is valued. After this brief demonstration we can in asking them: how functions this argument? Which the trick that makes with that the
adversary obtains to run away itself from the debate with dirty estatática. In first place, I want to warrant that one is not about magic, but before doconhecimento of the functioning of the thought projects and language, and therefore of the argument (despite in only practical level). The blow consists of the following one: at the moment where the quarrel is lost for the side that goes to use the authority this it deviates the attention of the interlocutor making mention to the authority of a rank that in we accustom them to respect in our daily life. Immediately, and for consequence the interlocutor if remembers somebody respectable thing that he exerts this rank (for example: of a older man, or a recognized Doctor), and this it occurs by means of a mechanism of association of ideas that exists in the human cognitivos projects (at another moment I speak of the TeoriasAssociacionistas de Heerbart, here exactly in the Shvoong), and makes with that momentâneamente let us make confusion enters that one that in eo says to them subject (abstract and generic) to who in we accustom them to respect. This pause in the argument is the resource from that it makes use the adversary to run away from the quarrel or to try to counterattack an adversary that brusquely was interrupted and will have therefore to all retake proceso of chaining of the reasoning. If this blow was used in a physical fight, its equivalent would be the action of alguem to play sand in the eyes of the adversary to run away or to try to give a blow to it while this is temporarily blind. Although the primarismo of this blow, many people are still victims of this scheme, which gives to many times the possibility of the adversary to gain time and if to run away from the quarrel in apparent advantage. The spite of the cowardice and simplicity of this dirty resource, the same is used of form repeated against who does not know the blow, and relieves to the times to who the spear the nickname of being somebody respectable thing.How to prevent this resource? it is simple: an only question disassembles the authority and as magical we see to get rid it illusion created for it. The question is: “reason I must confer to this subject to authority that it says to have”. When making this question disappears the false relation between the interlocutor (concrete) and the “respectable function” (abstract and generic) that it supposedly occupies, what makes with that let us not be induced to confer authority to who does not possess. I wait that all have liked. In the next summary I will place in evidence the trick of the “argument to the man” (Ad argument Homini), another used dirty trick for little capable debatedores. I dedicate to this summary the Magnus Amaral Fields and MariaNina, that with its existence give to the certification of the presence “inloco” of the examples that I have cited in some of my articles.