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.
|
Since the claims made in this argument require verification that I don't possess, I don't know whether there are factual errors in the argument or not. But given the structure of the argument, it can be fallacious in the following way:
The given argument is a chain of causality, where it is claimed that one event will have to cause/leads to the second event and so on until the last event is concluded (2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration means that....which means that...which means that...etc). One very common fallacy such arguments are prone to is the slippery slope<> fallacy. To verify whether or not this argument is a fallacious slippery slope, you need to ask yourself: How likely is it that one event in the chain is going to lead to the next? Are there other probable alternative events that can take place down the chain that may divert the route of causality to a different final event than the one proposed in the argument? If satisfactory justification is given for each event leading to the next all the way up to the final event, the argument won't be a fallacious slippery slope. |
answered on Tuesday, May 07, 2019 03:55:44 PM by Abdulazeez |
Comments |
|