Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
When someone makes a claim about the effects of X, they need to understand X to the extent that the can justify their claim. So person 1 is being unreasonable making such a claim. At the same time, person 2's claim that because person 1 cannot define X then the claim is not true is a classic argument from ignorance . |
answered on Friday, Aug 02, 2024 12:25:55 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
This is an ad fidentia argument. "Wokeness" is used as a buzzword by people on the right in a bit of a nebulous way, but it is a word that can be defined. Particularly as the word "woke" was originally used in AAVE, and later more broadly by the left, as an adjective to specifically describe someone who is keenly aware of social injustice. The fact that Person 1 cannot personally define it just speaks to their own knowledge of the topic, not the core validity of the argument. |
answered on Friday, Aug 02, 2024 12:28:19 PM by Mr. Wednesday | |
Mr. Wednesday Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|