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.
|
Totally agree with Dr Bo.
I would also add that you accidentally Affirmed the Consequent in your wet pavement example. Whether a sitting President can be indicted is definitely a legal question rather than a logical one. AG Barr is apparently of the opinion that they cannot. However, AG Barr also argues that you cannot commit obstruction of justice if there is no underlying crime. This is a bizarre assertion and puts him very much in the minority of the legal profession, and calls into question to what extent motivated reasoning and special pleading are driving his public utterances in this case. Certainly Robert Mueller indicated very strongly in his report that the Congressional solution (ie impeachment) was the way to deal with these crimes. As to whether tribal politics puts Trump above the law? I'm not sure we can say that. Yes, it means he is significantly more likely to be acquitted by the Senate if the House chose to impeach, but then in a regular court attractive people are less likely to be found guilty than unattractive people ( www.psychologytoday.com/g. . . Does that mean unattractive people are 'above the law', or does it just mean the system of justice has some inherent flaws? |
answered on Monday, Jul 08, 2019 11:52:42 AM by Jim Cliff |
Comments |
|