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.
|
The argument is fine if it is in response to the claim that "guns kill people." This is a lazy soundbite for a much more elaborate argument. The argument is something along the lines of the prevalence of guns is unequivocally correlated with the level of gun violence. Therefore, reduce the number of guns available and reduce the gun violence. IF this is in response to that THAT argument, it would be a classic strawman fallacy . I do want to stress that if people insist on the simplistic "guns kill people" claim, they are opening themselves up to this kind of response. Perhaps, this can also be logic chopping in that it is generally clear what people mean when they say "guns kill people." It is understood that guns don't possess agency and it is the agent behind the gun that does the killing. The argument against this is that there are probably too many people who don't know the real argument and are just repeating what they have been told. |
answered on Saturday, Apr 08, 2023 03:09:47 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|