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.
|
There is really no error in reasoning here; perhaps just a failure to understanding human behavior. There is truth to the crowdsourcing effect; also referred to as wisdom of the crowds. There is also a concept in psychology known as the bystander effect, which explains the Genovese case you mention (although do have a read here to get an update on what we know about this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese#Accuracy_of_original_reports ). These are two different effects. The crowdsourcing effect is about knowledge and the bystander effect is about responsibility. With the former, people are more aware of their role to contribute where with the latter, there are no roles—it is about someone stepping up, usually at a personal risk. There are many nuances with both of these effects that are situation independent. Perhaps errors in reasoning can be found in specific examples, but generally there are no fallacies here. |
answered on Monday, Aug 23, 2021 06:28:57 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|