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.
|
A couple of things wrong here. First, I do agree that the word "discriminate" is being used differently, so this would be Equivocation . In the first example you provide, "discriminate" is more of a preference, whereas when related to people we are talking about an action or behavior that affects another person or group's well-being. Second, if a behavior is acceptable under one situation, it does not mean it is acceptable under all situations. Ignoring the equivocation, if it is okay to "discriminate" against Coke because one prefers Pepsi, that does not make it okay to discriminate against people of color. This is a common form of simple thinking where nuance is ignored and fallacious reasoning ensues as a result. |
answered on Saturday, Sep 10, 2016 08:31:38 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|