Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
I'm having some difficulty understanding the first one. It might be more clear if you posted a sample argument with specific points That second one, depending on the context, might not be a bad argument. Pretty much any event in history is going to involve some intergroup conflict, and accounts from every group are going to have some bias. An interpretation of those events that considers the perspectives of all involved is going to have an inherent advantage. For instance, if you're talking about westward expansion in the United States, you're going to get a skewed version of events if you don't consider the perspectives of the Native tribes they were displacing. That said, if the person is just using the word inclusive, but isn't actually considering a broader range of evidence, that would likely be political correctness fallacy . That said, historians with access to the same evidence will often come to different conclusions, so a perspective that considers multiple viewpoints isn't automatically correct or above criticism. To claim that a person can only disagree with a conclusion due to prejudice is ad hominem (circumstantial) . However, if a person is clearly favoring one conclusion over another because it aligns with the view of their in group rather than the strength of the evidence/argument, then saying a person is prejudiced may be a valid criticism of their reasoning skills. |
answered on Wednesday, Oct 11, 2023 11:04:49 AM by Mr. Wednesday | |
Mr. Wednesday Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|