Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.
In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
When someone doesnt understand and comprehend the substance or message you are conveying,
but instead points out the flawed structure/composition of the way you said it, thus concluding your'e thinking flawed or wrong?
|
answered on Tuesday, Apr 09, 2019 06:56:42 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
When you discount someone's answer because they didn't address your question as you wanted.
|
answered on Tuesday, Apr 09, 2019 02:51:10 PM by Colin P |
Comments |
|
|
If i may, your question is worded vaguely enough to confuse me.
What you describe is the usual way we determine is something is true or not. If there are mistakes in the logic, chances are, there is a fallacy. But "points out the flawed structure/composition of the way you said it, thus concluding your'e thinking flawed or wrong?" is not a fallacy by itself. Maybe the way someone does this is fallacious, but not the action in itself. As for biases, there are a huge number of possible culprits. One can attack the bad points of an argument, in order to escape having to accept the good points. This often happens when cognitive dissonance is working full power. i.e. you believe something but when evidence to the falsity of your belief presents itself, you reject it emotionally or escape it by criticising irrelevant points to the core claim. Or, you modify your beliefs slightly towards what you already believe, to resolve the conflict. More on Cognitive Dissonance here journals.sagepub.com/doi/. . . As Dr. Bo also said, it's possible that it's a fallacy fallacy. There's Anchoring. Which is when you base your entire models on one piece of information, to figure out an unknown proposition, and form everything around it (usually the first info about it), in terms of calculation this happens differently than in logical arguments. Therefore rejecting things that deviate from the Anchor; as for how this plays out, there isn't enough space here, BUT you can read it from here facilethings.com/blog/en/. . . it is good enough. A more in depth understanding of the Heuristics involved would require you to read some Daniel Kahneman. Belief bias. You discount the logical strenght of the argument, by how believable the conclusion is. This happens A LOT with people who overuse Reductio Ad Absurdum. Unintuitive conclusions are hit hard the most. I have a personal bone to pick with the concept of illusions, but convincing people that the definition is wrong is hard exactly because of the omnipresence of the socratic method. Dunning-Kruger effect. Where someone may dismiss an argument because they believe to possess the superior knowledge. This comes in the form of an Argument from Authority, or False Authority www.logicallyfallacious.c. . . The IKEA bias (Not kidding). Where you refuse to let go of an argument because you spent time over it, made it yourself, think it is more valuable because of it, which then makes you take the defensive stance of only attacking the argument, and refusing the good points. I have a Pdf of a study on it, and it explains a lot about why people refuse to let go of their positions. Especially when they altered it, and "Made it better". You can look it up on google scholar, it was made by Michael I. Norton, Daniel Mochon and Dan Ariely. It may stem from Post-Purchase Rationalisation. In the case of a logical argument, you have accepted an argument because it made sense (at the time), or because it helped you through tough times (optimism), understanding that it works, you keep it to you. When evidence to the argument's falsity appears, you do what is described in the question, for a combination of the IKEA effect, Emotional Investment, and the erroneous belief that even if it could be wrong under an instance, it is true and pragmatically useful under the rest of circumstances. Honestly, there are so many. But these are some of the most recurring. Fictional worlds abuse the IKEA bias very often. "Because we spent a lot of time doing X, X is more valuable than Y." Which we then bring up with the Appeal to Fiction (I'm kinda surprised it's not listed as a Fallacy on the site, maybe i just missed it?), where we claim something in the real world is the same as something in the fictional world, and that solutions used there are applicable in reality. You can reformulate this fallacy in a number of ways. It's really useful when you don't understand it's a fallacy. Though i don't like mentioning names, Jordan Peterson, who you might know, does this a lot. He really likes Dostoevskij. |
answered on Thursday, Apr 11, 2019 12:04:08 PM by Onlooker |
Comments |
|