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.
|
There's a similar example in the argument by emotive language (rejecting God = rejecting goodness and kindness). You're not rejecting it, maybe you have already read that pamphlet or something similar. It's also non sequitur . Not wanting to read a pamphlet doesn't mean you're rejecting what the pamphlet says and certainly doesn't mean you're rejecting Christ. Apart from the logical fallacies, the guy didn't respect your right to refuse to accept what he was trying to give you, and tried to manipulate you by making you feel bad for not complying with his will. So, I guess a justified response would be "Well, it sure sounds like you're trying to manipulate me, so fuck off!" |
answered on Monday, Jan 27, 2025 10:05:05 AM by Kostas Oikonomou | |
Kostas Oikonomou Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|