Comments on: How To Argue

By: wowieboy

wowieboy — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:01:02 +0000

Guys, what kind of fallacy is this:

“Since you’re against cancer-causing birth pills, therefore you’re against cancer-causing foods.”

Is this false analogy or RAA?

By: Huckelberg

Huckelberg — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 16:25:35 +0000

According to “Confusing correlation with causation”.
We see events and objects everyday,. But where do we see, or smell, or hear, or taste a causal connections between those events/objects?

Thanks in-advance.

- Huckelberg -

By: Ems

Ems — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:08:31 +0000

Bugger – ‘area’, not ‘are’. Must proof-read.

By: Ems

Ems — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:07:52 +0000

Watcher – a key characteristic of jokes is that they are funny. Stating that all females are incapable of logical thought is offensive, without any humorous tempering.

A little book that covers this are well, if anyone is interested, is Nigel Warburton’s ‘Thinking from A-Z’ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Thinking-Z-Nigel-Warburton/dp/0415433711 is a UK link

By: Darwins Teapot

Darwins Teapot — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 05:38:37 +0000

Fantastic recap of logic and argument. I think it takes a bit of the stigma off of a critical mindset. I liked this part because it restates the most important aspect of critical thinking and being “logical”:

“In most of the arguments that I find myself the other person has staked out a position and they defend it jealously, as if they were a high-paid lawyer defending a client. This adversarial approach, however, is not constructive. Rather, the parties of an argument should be trying to find common ground, and then proceed carefully from that common ground to resolve any differences.”

Scott

By: weing

weing — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:38:52 +0000

I infer that he’s just poisoning the well. As Steve noted in his reply,
“If someone brings up a point that is clearly irrelevant and calculated to bias their audience against their target – that is poisoning the well.”
At least I learned one thing, that I’m a surrogate. Never knew that.

By: tmac57

tmac57 — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:08:22 +0000

To anyone on this blog who thinks they can accomplish anything useful by arguing with artfulD , I have concluded that it is an exercise in futility, as tempting as it may be.
So my advice is just ignore artfulD’s posts like you would quicksand, and the comments section will be greatly reduced. The pseudonym artfulD should give us all a clue.IMO

By: artfulD

artfulD — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 08:27:32 +0000

Pass.

By: Thenewyorkdolley

Thenewyorkdolley — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 07:29:58 +0000

“Anyway, I’ve said my piece and I’m done with fending off surrogates.”

Now this I know to be false based on the sample space of your past claims of being ‘done’ in previous threads on this blog.

“And as to ‘creating’ collective wisdom, your own dictionary definition refers to “expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest.” Which seems a lot more like applying wisdom than creating it.”

There is a difference between ‘expressing ideas’ and ‘applying wisdom.’ Art is a feedback system which expresses the current state of a culture while simultaneously subverting and changing it. Of course it relies on inferential processes – getting out of bed relies on them as well. What exactly is your point?

By: artfulD

artfulD — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 06:28:37 +0000

Certainty was the goal of formal logic. Reliability is the goal of the inferential process. But, ironically, formal logic doesn’t work without human inference.
Anyway, I’ve said my piece and I’m done with fending off surrogates.