|
|
When is it logical and illogical to claim the followingIf someone argues a subject and uses the argument that "that's because of genetic input from their ancestors" when is it logical and when is it fallacious. Not really concerned with logical form as much as logically sound.
Can we really argue anything other than predisposition to something as opposed to genetic certainty? Btw, the obvious of course is physical traits , race, eye color etc. I mean something that might not be so self evident. Ty P.s. Bo doesn't know Diddly. Lol lets see if Bo remembers that one too..... |
| asked on Tuesday, Jan 19, 2016 02:39:03 AM by | |
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."
This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are. The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning. With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
This is more of a case of not understanding genetics than an error with reasoning. Genetics contribute to physical, biological, and psychological traits—in very few cases do they actually determine these (as implied by the causal language "that's because..."). Even height is only about 90% heritable. The other 10% is not due to genetics, but environmental factors such as diet. The best way to respond to someone claiming "that's because of genetic input from their ancestors" in reference to a psychological/behavioral trait, is a little education on heritability, specifically how it is only a contributor and not a determinant.
|
| answered on Tuesday, Jan 19, 2016 08:39:21 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
| |