Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) made headlines after the fourth 2015 Republican Presidential Primary Debate on Tuesday, Nov. 10 for declaring, “We need more welders and less philosophers.”
Rubio’s supporting premise for this absurd conclusion rests on his claim that, “Welders make more money than philosophers” which is a claim that data from the American Bureau of Labor Statistics utterly rejects. The research shows welders take home an average annual salary of $40,040, while postsecondary philosophy professors are listed with a mean salary of $71,350.
The greatest fallacy in Rubio’s argument, however, doesn’t come from this incorrect premise, or even the false dichotomy in his conclusion. It comes from the very structure of his proposal. If Rubio contends our nation needs fewer philosophers and more welders on the basis of earnings, then he should also suggest we need fewer welders and more physicians, or fewer teachers and more drug kingpins.
While these extrapolations may stray from and mock Rubio’s intended meaning, they illustrate the outright lack of any sound reasoning in the politician’s message.
Furthermore, I would argue the values of philosophical study stretch far beyond any fiscal appraisal. Philosophy teaches the art of argument construction and analysis, a skill Rubio could benefit from.
As it stands, Rubio’s statement hardly warrants being called an argument. It lacks any true premise and demonstrates an invalid deductive structure. Rubio’s proposition uses emotionally charged language, not logic, in an attempt to persuade susceptible minds of a baseless conclusion.
Despite the problems with Rubio’s “argument,” I will offer him one concession.
If Rubio wants to earn enough votes to win the presidency with flawed rhetorical ploys, then yes, he will need fewer philosophers. They would never be swayed by such tactics.
Bryce Detweiler is a third-year student majoring in communication studies and philosophy. He can be reached at BD846487@wcupa.edu.
I believe that you are twisting Senator Rubio’s point. His broader argument was that many college curriculums have become antiquated in a transitioning global economy. The article is too hung up on Rubio’s attempt at a catchy line. Within the context of the debate, the senator argues that, in order to compete globally, America must resist against an environment where students rack up tens of thousands of dollars in debt for degrees in stagnated fields. Rather, students should choose between two paths: skilled labor (jobs that are much easier to secure than that of high-paid professor) or higher education with a focus on growing fields (math, science, healthcare, etc.).
Zach,
I appreciate your comments. Indeed, as I admit in the column, I am picking on Rubio for his shot at a catch phrase. However, even considering his implicit point (which I believe you’ve accurately portrayed), the same critiques apply. The two paths he presents, although broad, still constitute a false dichotomy and detract from what college should be about – education. If we reduce our nation’s students to single-minded job seekers, we may compete with the rest of the world economically, but culturally we will suffer. Maybe that’s a topic to be explored in another editorial, but this column was meant to focus on the widespread use of rhetorical ploys by politicians in place of valid arguments. Rubio’s calling out of philosophy simply provided a great irony to introduce the issue. Thanks again.
– Bryce