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.
|
Identity fallacy. It's when the argument is dismissed based on the arguer's social class, race, gender, etc:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/234/Identity-Fallacy<> That kind of logic can be taken to absurd conclusions. Should one be a dog to argue for animal rights? A cow to argue that killing animals for food is bad or acceptable? a moral philosopher or bioethicist with credentials and who is trained in their field has a far higher probability of underatanding gender-related and female-related ethical issues than a feminazi whose only credential is "knowing what it's like to be a woman." Here's an interesting article by Dr. Bo about common fallacies in the social justice movement: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/bg/Bo/LogicalFallacies/UqIFDDHA/Top-Five-Logical-Fallacies-in-the-Social-Justice-Movement<> |
answered on Wednesday, Nov 21, 2018 05:27:08 PM by Abdulazeez |
Comments |
|
|
Looks like a form of the appeal to authority argument
|
answered on Thursday, Nov 22, 2018 06:22:01 AM by Alan |
Comments |
|