This is an excellent video and very timely for those of us in the USA. It was nice to take some time to listen instead of just screaming into the void. Bummer that we didn't get to see the slides, though.
The 2 books mentioned at 15:32 are: The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook - Ward Farnsworth The Ancient Art of Thinking For Yourself - Robin Reames
I've found that a close study of fallacies is amply rewarded during pretty much every conversation that we might ever strike up with another person. Even if we don't call anyone out, and even if no one calls us out, for offering a fallacious argument, we can feel more confident that our conversation is keeping to reasonable grounds. And this leads to a more confident, more engaging, potentially more productive conversation. On the other hand, a strong working knowledge of fallacies is invaluable for catching less-than-honest actors in their moment of falsehood. It may well do THEM no particular service to call them out, but in a dialectical sense it provides onlookers with an excellent playbook by which to follow the action. And the dishonest actors invariably respond with more fallacies, which helps to move the dialectical process further along. But you must know your fallacies well before invoking them. You must use them surgically and, if possible, respectfully. Don't be mean about it. And be sure that you know what you're talking about. An Argument from Authority, for example, is only a fallacy if the scope of the authority is irrelevant to the veracity of the claim. If I cite the Lloyds of London register of vessels at sea in order to identify some ship and its displacement and crew complement, that not fallacious. But William Shatner is not an authority on baked goods, much as I recall him doing some grocery store ads back in the day. The Christian Bible is not an authority on historical events. Another flawed attempt to call out a fallacy came up recently online when a Christian apologist tried to assert that dismissing his supernatural claim was a fallacious Argument from Incredulity. No, dismissal is only a fallacy if it's based on personal inability. You tell me that there may be 10^23 stars in the universe. I can't imagine a number of that magnitude. Fine. That's a confession about me. It doesn't extend to reality. But if you've failed to make a reasonable argument, it's not a fallacy for me to remain unconvinced. Yes, I just can't believe your bad argument, because it's a bad argument. You don't get a free pass. So yes, a mastery of fallacies requires more than rote memorization. You have to understand what exactly is wrong with a particular form of argument that makes it fallacious. But as a rhetorical technique, it's extremely powerful to be able to call out a fallacy and to show why it's a fallacy. You can do it kindly. But if ever you do it, there really is no comeback except either denial or name-calling. In the case of denial, you can offer a helpful explanation. Your opponent now looks more foolish, and will look more foolish still at each iteration. In the case of name calling, first understand that this is a sign of cognitive retreat. No pretense of rational argument remains. You need only point out that the "your a poo head" argument is not recoverable.
I'd let go of the metaphysical abstraction and reification of the process of knowing (Plato's knowledge made of Truths). I'm happy with warranted assertions, with truths understood to currently be the best approximations.
Pigliucci says, "Jonathan Haidt claiming that the human brain basically almost always, if not always, engages in rationalization rather than rational thinking. If he's right that applies also to his own papers." My recollection is that Haidt's idea of instincts coming first and reasoning second is most pronounced when justifying basic instincts like moral judgments. I don't think he necessarily extends this process to all reasoning. For example, I believe he has written that the approach of science is one way of avoiding the feelings first, reasoning second, process. Theoretically, that should apply to his social science conclusions.
Don't credit Haidt - this is Daniel Kahneman's big idea, outlined in his 2011 book "Thinking Fast and Slow." An excellent book, with ideas important to understanding human nature.
Some unconventional science is a new discovery in science. Sceptics may be sceptics only if the science is unconventional. Therefore keeping falshood alive for ever while taking pride in being wise and educated.
Very timely but also generally apt topic that every human can benefit from, simply by nature of being human. Thanks!
This is an excellent video and very timely for those of us in the USA. It was nice to take some time to listen instead of just screaming into the void. Bummer that we didn't get to see the slides, though.
The 2 books mentioned at 15:32 are:
The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook - Ward Farnsworth
The Ancient Art of Thinking For Yourself - Robin Reames
great talk, professor.
Thank You
Amen!
I've found that a close study of fallacies is amply rewarded during pretty much every conversation that we might ever strike up with another person.
Even if we don't call anyone out, and even if no one calls us out, for offering a fallacious argument, we can feel more confident that our conversation is keeping to reasonable grounds. And this leads to a more confident, more engaging, potentially more productive conversation.
On the other hand, a strong working knowledge of fallacies is invaluable for catching less-than-honest actors in their moment of falsehood. It may well do THEM no particular service to call them out, but in a dialectical sense it provides onlookers with an excellent playbook by which to follow the action.
And the dishonest actors invariably respond with more fallacies, which helps to move the dialectical process further along.
But you must know your fallacies well before invoking them. You must use them surgically and, if possible, respectfully. Don't be mean about it. And be sure that you know what you're talking about.
An Argument from Authority, for example, is only a fallacy if the scope of the authority is irrelevant to the veracity of the claim. If I cite the Lloyds of London register of vessels at sea in order to identify some ship and its displacement and crew complement, that not fallacious. But William Shatner is not an authority on baked goods, much as I recall him doing some grocery store ads back in the day. The Christian Bible is not an authority on historical events.
Another flawed attempt to call out a fallacy came up recently online when a Christian apologist tried to assert that dismissing his supernatural claim was a fallacious Argument from Incredulity. No, dismissal is only a fallacy if it's based on personal inability. You tell me that there may be 10^23 stars in the universe. I can't imagine a number of that magnitude. Fine. That's a confession about me. It doesn't extend to reality. But if you've failed to make a reasonable argument, it's not a fallacy for me to remain unconvinced. Yes, I just can't believe your bad argument, because it's a bad argument. You don't get a free pass.
So yes, a mastery of fallacies requires more than rote memorization. You have to understand what exactly is wrong with a particular form of argument that makes it fallacious.
But as a rhetorical technique, it's extremely powerful to be able to call out a fallacy and to show why it's a fallacy. You can do it kindly. But if ever you do it, there really is no comeback except either denial or name-calling. In the case of denial, you can offer a helpful explanation. Your opponent now looks more foolish, and will look more foolish still at each iteration.
In the case of name calling, first understand that this is a sign of cognitive retreat. No pretense of rational argument remains. You need only point out that the "your a poo head" argument is not recoverable.
Massimo!
I'd let go of the metaphysical abstraction and reification of the process of knowing (Plato's knowledge made of Truths). I'm happy with warranted assertions, with truths understood to currently be the best approximations.
Everything with the word "quantum" in it.
Pigliucci says, "Jonathan Haidt claiming that the human brain basically almost always, if not always, engages in rationalization rather than rational thinking. If he's right that applies also to his own papers."
My recollection is that Haidt's idea of instincts coming first and reasoning second is most pronounced when justifying basic instincts like moral judgments. I don't think he necessarily extends this process to all reasoning. For example, I believe he has written that the approach of science is one way of avoiding the feelings first, reasoning second, process. Theoretically, that should apply to his social science conclusions.
Don't credit Haidt - this is Daniel Kahneman's big idea, outlined in his 2011 book "Thinking Fast and Slow." An excellent book, with ideas important to understanding human nature.
@@jondevaney6860
I use the $1.10 bat and ball brainteaser to illustrate the difference between system1 and system2 processes all the time.
Some unconventional science is a new discovery in science.
Sceptics may be sceptics only if the science is unconventional.
Therefore keeping falshood alive for ever while taking pride in being wise and educated.
Prove that homeopathy is "pseudoscience". Where is the evidence of this?
Blocking channel.