Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Get all EIGHT of Bo's printed books, all autographed*. Save over $50!
* This offer is for residents of United States and Canada only.
|
I'm having some difficulty understanding the first one. It might be more clear if you posted a sample argument with specific points That second one, depending on the context, might not be a bad argument. Pretty much any event in history is going to involve some intergroup conflict, and accounts from every group are going to have some bias. An interpretation of those events that considers the perspectives of all involved is going to have an inherent advantage. For instance, if you're talking about westward expansion in the United States, you're going to get a skewed version of events if you don't consider the perspectives of the Native tribes they were displacing. That said, if the person is just using the word inclusive, but isn't actually considering a broader range of evidence, that would likely be political correctness fallacy . That said, historians with access to the same evidence will often come to different conclusions, so a perspective that considers multiple viewpoints isn't automatically correct or above criticism. To claim that a person can only disagree with a conclusion due to prejudice is ad hominem (circumstantial) . However, if a person is clearly favoring one conclusion over another because it aligns with the view of their in group rather than the strength of the evidence/argument, then saying a person is prejudiced may be a valid criticism of their reasoning skills. |
answered on Wednesday, Oct 11, 2023 11:04:49 AM by Mr. Wednesday | |
Mr. Wednesday Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|