Fallacious arguments made by angry CRNAsArchived Message
Posted by graham on January 1, 2008, 7:49 pm
FIRST fallacious argument: Improper Transposition If A then B. Valid conclusion includes: If NOT B, then NOT A. Asserting, If NOT A, then NOT B is a…..fallacy.
Scornful CRNAs’ argument: We can practice independently, therefore we must be smarter (If A then B). They proceed to assert: If AA’s can NOT practice independently, then they are NOT smart. (If NOT A, then NOT B……..which is a fallacy.)
SECOND fallacious argument: Apples to oranges comparison between independent CRNAs and AA’s under the ACT model.
THIRD fallacious argument: Burden of Proof….aka….The absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There is an absence of publicized safe practice records among the AA’s. CRNA trolls twist this into: “We can’t find supporting evidence that AA’s are safe anesthetist, therefore they are not safe anesthetist.”
FOURTH fallacious argument: Ad Hominem. Attacking the person instead of the argument.
FIFTH fallacious argument: Appeal to Authority. The claim that the arguer, who has been in anesthesia business for decades, must be absolutely right.
SIXTH fallacious argument: Ad Nausea. Argument by repetition, hoping that if a statement is stated over and over again, people hopefully will start believing that it is true.
SEVENTH fallacious argument: Non Sequitur. “AA’s are supervised by anesthesiologists, therefore they are incompetent.”
EIGHT fallacious argument: Red Herring. Persevering on the issue of billing opportunity rather than discussing the similarities and differences between CRNA’s and AA’s in the ACT model. And this is combined with the UNFOUNDED assertion that all anesthesiologists are simply using the poor, hapless AA’s so the MD’s can make lots of money, while ignoring the BENEVOLENT physicians who hire AA’s to ensure adequate staffing and ADEQUATE PATIENT CARE.
