Stanley Milgram’s “Issues in the Study of Obedience: A Reply to Baumrind” addresses his concerns regarding the argument she presents in her article in which she critiques his notable experiment on obedience. Correspondingly, he attempts to defend his premise as well as the chosen experimental methods he employs. However, Milgram’s response is ineffective in conveying his assertions to the article’s intended and likely audience because Milgram proves himself to be an unreliable authority. This fraudulence is evident given his clear display of bias, his illustration of false dilemmas, and his usage of an ad hominem attack. Milgram’s deliberate selection bias is evident throughout the entirety of this artic;e and it indirectly informs the reader …show more content…
Furthermore, it is a viewpoint that cannot be stated with such definite certainty that he displays. For instance, Milgram establishes a point to convey that there exist only two options in the study of psychology: “helping people” or “learning about people” (1964, p. 147). However, this is not the ultimatum he claims it is due to the fact that these two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive and are not the only two options; an ethical researcher will object to such a characterization. Perhaps Milgram does actually believe in this ultimatum but that does not signify its actuality, and while Milgram goes on with the effort to convince the reader that he is helping people in the long run, his attempted justification of his methods are hollow. This false dilemma is misleading and obscures the problem at hand, thus the claim itself holds little meaning. Essentially, this argument only serves to convey to this group of readers that this author is not a satisfactory authority regarding this …show more content…
Milgram’s attacks are evident with every instance he formulates a reference to Baumrind and his application of this type of argument shows the reader that this is not a reliable source regarding the topic at hand. Specifically, Milgram views Baumrind’s opinion as invalid given his apprehension concerning her ability, or lack thereof, to understand the tough reality of science declaring that “Baumrind is uncomfortable with the high level of obedience obtained in the first experiment,” (1964, p. 146) making the implication that she is too emotional vulnerable to have an opinion. By the same token, Milgram’s argument extends to slander Baumrind’s thesis on the basis of her gender. This type of strategy is often used as a last resort, when the writer has no valid argument to expand upon, therefore his use of this attack conveys to the reader of Milgram’s lack of grounds in relation to this argument. Similarly, he attempts to portray Baumrind’s article as a work without all the facts and thereby presenting her as an individual who would publish without retrieveing all the necessary information. However in reality, it was Milgram who withheld information, rendering the claim that, “Baumrind’s article was deficient in information that could have been obtained easily,” (1964, p. 140) invalid. Accordingly, this fallacy does the