Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
See Dr. Bo's Fallacies of Composition or Division aka Part-to-whole or whole-to-part fallacies.
|
answered on Sunday, Dec 02, 2018 08:53:07 PM by mchasewalker |
Comments |
|
|
Since some errors in reasoning can be classified into many fallacies, I think the one you mentioned is an ad hominem (guilt by association)<> and also can be considered as a false equivalence<>
|
answered on Sunday, Dec 02, 2018 08:55:56 PM by Abdulazeez |
Comments |
|
|
There are two significant problems with this argument. The first is use of the term "attack." It can be reasonably assumed that the arguer is referring to physical attacks on journalists of the dictators. In the second use of the word "attack" the arguer is specifically referring to "attacks on opinion," which quite different from chopping a journalist into pieces or similar (the implied use of "attack" by dictators). This is the equivocation fallacy<>. |
answered on Monday, Dec 03, 2018 07:02:15 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|