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.
|
I am being a bit pedantic, but
Person A: "We should question the results of a vote when it's possible that the vote has been tainted." Via a reductio, it is possible that any vote has been tainted, so therefore, we must question the results of every vote. Either this is a absurd or it is meaningless, in that it would just be more clear to say "we should question the results of all elections." Now to your question, Person B: "There is no point in questioning the results of a vote since we'd have to question the results of every vote in living memory." In one sense, they are alluding to what I had said. This means that all votes could be tainted. Their error is that just because all votes (past, present, and future) could be tainted, it doesn't follow that there is no point in questioning the results of any given vote. The general fallacy is the non-sequitur. Perhaps more specifically, this would be the Nirvana Fallacy<>. The ideal solution might very well be to question every vote in history, but since that it an impossible task (practically speaking), we can't ignore that questioning any one election would be good enough or at least an improvement. |
|||
answered on Saturday, Aug 31, 2019 10:52:36 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|||
|