|
|
An absurd argument posed by a friend about Star Trek.My friend: "Lol saying ST is intellectually engaging is hilarious. Most of the episodes are clearly the product of writers who were forced to write too many episodes. It's intellectually dilute; you need patience to wade through the hours of garbage - space virus, space mcs, and holodeck episodes to name a few - before anyone is ever anywhere close to being intellectually engaged. ST scripts will not be read by future generations looking to be intellectually engaged by humanity's finest literature."
Here's my break down of it: P1 - Lol saying ST is intellectually engaging is hilarious. P2 - Most of the episodes are clearly the product of writers who were forced to write too many episodes. P3 - It's intellectually dilute; you need patience to wade through the hours of garbage - space virus, space mcs, and holodeck episodes to name a few - C - before anyone is ever anywhere close to being intellectually engaged. ST scripts will not be read by future generations looking to be intellectually engaged by humanity's finest literature. What type of argument is this? My guess is inductive. I think the last sentence in the conclusion is a non sequitur, but still qualifies as a conclusion. Is my analysis correct? He claims this argument to be inductive as well. I need someone to thoroughly break it down and also point out which fallacies are committed so I can better understand it. -Thanks, Dave |
| asked on Wednesday, Sep 09, 2015 03:38:48 AM by Dave | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
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.
|
|
Hi David. This appears to more of highly opinionated rant (there is nothing necessarily wrong with that) than a basis for a logical argument. Each claim being made appears to be just an opinion backed by personal preferences and values—I would be curious if your friend implied that his claims were factual in any way. If he does claim more than opinion, than you might take issue with his last statement where he writes: |
| answered on Wednesday, Sep 09, 2015 06:19:36 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
Dude it is so not an opinion that people can be broken down to atoms and "beamed up to Scotty", Problem is Scotty passed away and took the actual secret with him. Star Trek is extremely intelligent from the basis of it being extremely in the future where everyone is super intelligent, so much so there's no money. How could you possibly not like utopia with aliens "war mongers"? By the way, watch Voyager and when the borg woman shows up, you tell me if that body, ummm, I mean character isn't brilliant.....(cheek meet tongue)
|
| answered on Thursday, Sep 17, 2015 07:26:55 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |
