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.
|
It might be argued that Item 3 is a weak analogy. If I interpret the point of the OP correctly I see this to be the issue: Is making an assumption/inference based on common knowledge ("largest country," therefore Russia), analogous to making an assumption (inference) from a vague reference in a book (the book made a statement that iron was sent down, therefore the book said it was from space). What is the relevant comparison: (1) That each is making an assumption, or (2) comparing a vague reference in a book to common knowledge? I believe that the strength of the argument depends on how convinced we are that common knowledge is similar to unclear statements in books. An obviously suspect comparison in my view. |
answered on Wednesday, Jun 30, 2021 08:23:01 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|