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.
|
No. The problem isn't drawing the conclusion; it's defining "riot." Riots can break out of protests, which they did, but that doesn't make the entire event itself a "riot." This is an area ripe with political bias and spin. One can legitimately refer to the event in 2020 as "riots" as well as "protests." We just need to keep in mind that they are referring to different events. The riots were subsets of the protests. Implying that the protests, as a whole, were "riots," might be best characterized by the ambiguity fallacy |
answered on Monday, Feb 22, 2021 06:48:53 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|