Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
Here is RationalWiki's Entry on the Motte and Bailey fallacy. I thought there was one on here as well, but I think there may have been an overhaul on the fallacies list recently - the motte and bailey fallacy might be considered a rhetorical device rather than an actual logical fallacy. So, I think the AI started to explain it well...
But, it missed an important element after that, which is equivocation between the two points, and that generally requires the points to be fairly similar. Saying AI will enslave humanity, then when challenged saying that what you really meant is that it would take jobs, is a pretty transparent change in position. Using some more generic phrasing like "AI is dangerous to humanity," then falling back on jobs, would be a better example. |
|||
answered on Wednesday, Mar 13, 2024 09:24:15 PM by Mr. Wednesday | ||||
Mr. Wednesday Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
|