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.
|
Regarding fallacies, if someone were to say something along the lines of "the reason black people are getting shot is because they put themselves in that situation" it would be causal reductionism . In no way does compliance guarantee one's safety, and in no way does the lack of compliance justify a death sentence (in virtually all cases). This is why the "comply and don't die" narrative is false. It would be more accurate to say "comply and reduce the risk that you will die," but even this completely reasonable advice is often seen as "politically incorrect" or even "racist," even though that advice applies to people of every race. This is because it's not just the advice, it is the context as well. "Comply reduce the risk that you will die," is solid advice in isolation, but said right after a police officer used excessive force on a citizen is insensitive at best, and perhaps even racist if the person/outlet saying this has a history of only saying this in response to a black death and not a white death. A serious problem here is the over correction or the reaction to advice such as "comply and reduce the risk that you will die," by ignoring all personal responsibility—not just avoiding saying this at inappropriate times, but never saying it or teaching it to our children. "Comply and reduce the risk that you will die," is good, reasonable advice that is demonstrably true, and should not be ignored. This doesn't mean we still can't work on solving the other serious problem of excessive and unnecessary force used by the police. |
answered on Sunday, Apr 25, 2021 08:29:58 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
There is a logical argument for "comply and don't die" as follows:
These are simple statements of probability backed by statistics. Where the logic gets tricky is when words such as "justified" are used. Here, the ambiguity fallacy can enter the conversation. What does it mean we say a shooting is "justified"? Are we talking about legal rights? Training? Judgment? Is justification based on what a police officer thought was happening or what was actually happening? What the officer thought was likely to happen or what a reasonable person would think was likely to happen? (Some would go even further, believing the "systemically racist" police can't ever be justified in using deadly force against a person of color.) We've seen this ambiguity in so many cases:
When people try to answer these questions, you'll notice their definition of "justified" shifts or comes with qualifications. To get clarity on the matter, you have to get pointed. For instance, you might ask: Are you saying the victim (or her boyfriend) is wholly responsible for his/her death (or injury)? The police bear no responsibility here? Etc. |
answered on Monday, Apr 26, 2021 12:05:44 PM by Jordan Pine | |
Jordan Pine Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|