Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
This is for the most part a series of opinions. Different people will have different levels of anxiety about reopening, for many reasons. That said, there are some implicit arguments here that could qualify as fallacious or unpersuasive.
The person reasons that, because their friend does X all the time and was not harmed, X is safe for anyone who does it. This is a hasty generalization because it is not a given that their friend's experience can be generalised out to the entire population. Secondly, it may be considered the 'human' and 'normal' thing to freely socialise...but shouldn't we reconsider what our 'nature' compels us to do if the circumstances call for it? The premise there is unsupported and requires buttressing.
Not a fallacy but if I have to nitpick, technically you can catch COVID while vaccinated - even twice - so there might be something to worry about. However, the risk of contraction is low, the risk of illness even lower, and the risk of death lowest. So one could argue it is irrational to be fearful of going outside. Nevertheless, perhaps the first person has some personal circumstances that make the possibility of contracting COVID a more pressing concern.
This is an appeal to normality. Yes, it may be 'normal' to go outside a lot, but as I wrote above, it makes sense to reevaluate our life choices when the evidence begins to suggest so. For instance, if we are told that typical socialising could lead to the spread of deadly disease. That said, the risk of COVID for causing serious harm also needs to be considered properly (if it isn't killing anyone, for example, is it worth keeping restrictions and suffering through the loss of livelihood and mental health instability?) At the end, both person 1 and person 2 commit relevance fallacies (abusive ad hominem) by accusing each other of abuse, thus diverting the conversation away from whether they should go outside, and towards whether one is psychologically dominating the other (and, from what we've read, both of these are rather baseless - this exchange is an example of people with different priors regarding reopening). So, mostly unsupported opinion, with some potential fallacious reasoning and an exaggerated premise. |
|||
answered on Sunday, Jul 18, 2021 05:16:55 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | ||||
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
|
|
This isn't a logical syllogism or formation, how could their be fallacies? I don't care... just wondering why you think there'd be any "fallacies". There's a whole lot of normative statements about what people "ought" to want. If person 1 has been vaccinated, and is pretty healthy, they don't have much to worry about. CDC guidelines (as of right now) state that it is safe to go out in public and enjoy yourself, IF you are vaccinated. Is person 2 also vaccinated? If that's the case, then it seems to me p1 should be perfectly happy with p2 going to the amusement park. Your "values" seem to be that nobody should go out in public, because you have some irrational fear. If both of you are vaccinated, your probability of dying is similar to somebody being eaten by an alligator just because they visit Florida. In my opinion it just isn't a rational fear, but that's just my opinion. Marking |
answered on Sunday, Jul 18, 2021 02:45:44 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|