Rhetoric 24, Section 1
Arguing with Judge Judy: Popular "Logic" on TV Judge Shows (1 unit, LG)
Professor Daniel F. Melia
Monday 2:00-3:00, 283 Dwinelle Hall, CCN: 77857

Food for Thought dining arrangements will be discussed in class.

TV "Judge" shows have become extremely popular in the last 3-5 years. A fascinating aspect of these shows from a rhetorical point of view is the number of arguments made by the litigants that are utterly illogical, or perversions of standard logic, and yet are used over and over again. For example, when asked "Did you hit the plaintiff?" respondents often say, "If I woulda hit him, he'd be dead!" This reply avoids answering "yes" or "no" by presenting a perverted form of the logical strategy called "a fortiori" argument ["from the stronger"] in Latin. The seminar will be concerned with identifying such apparently popular logical fallacies on "Judge Judy" and "The People's Court" and discussing why such strategies are so widespread. It is NOT a course about law or "legal reasoning." Students who are interested in logic, public disputation, argumentation, and popular notions of fairness will probably be interested in this course. This is NOT a law course or even a pre-law course. This seminar is part of the Food for Thought Seminar Series.

Professor Melia belongs to the Rhetoric department and the Program in Celtic Studies. His scholarly interests include Classical rhetorical theory, oral discourse, and medieval Celtic literature and languages. His recent publications concern Aristotle and orality and the forms of early Irish poetry. He is a former Jeopardy! champion. Website: http://rhetoric.berkeley.edu/faculty_bios/daniel_melia.html