3 ms·

Whenever I read or hear a philosophy professor teaching about fallacies, I always look at their examples. And whenever their examples all spring from a consist

by jawns 10y ago

Whenever I read or hear a philosophy professor teaching about fallacies, I always look at their examples. And whenever their examples all spring from a consistent worldview (e.g. they all debunk liberal ideas or conservative ideas or religious ideas or anti-religious ideas), it raises my eyebrows, because it makes me suspect that they're more interested in defending their worldview than they are in teaching logic. But when someone presents example arguments that are inconsistent with one another, perhaps debunking an anti-religious argument first, then debunking a religious argument, then I know that they're primarily concerned with teaching, rather than indoctrinating. I won't say which camp I think Prof. Hájek falls into with this Aeon piece, but let's just consider this suspicion of consistent-worldview examples another tool in the philosopher's toolkit of critical thinking.

GavinMcG 10y ago
Why not say which camp you think the author falls into? You're practically doing so by raising the issue specifically in relation to this piece, and you could have stuck with "here's another tool...". What's the virtue of being coy?
andkon 10y ago
I mean the great thing about fallacies is their content isn't important. It's their structure that makes them flawed in leading to the truth. The examples, as a result, are something you can safely ignore, whether or not they're ones you agree with. For what it's worth, learning to notice the underlying structure of an argument is probably a far more important philosophical skill than noticing that your interlocutor doesn't share your political viewpoints.
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  We humans tend to train ourselves to subject opposing arguments to rigorous analysis while letting arguments we like off the hook. Learning about fallacies using examples we like is particularly likely to encourage this habit.
trendroid 10y ago
>I won't say which camp I think Prof. Hájek falls into with this Aeon piece The way you put it in this comment, it may feel to some that you are suggesting the author is trying to indoctrinate. I highly recommend people to read the article itself to find that out. It's doing no such thing in my opinion and makes sure to not sound like having an agenda. The author may simply choose some examples that happen to increase reader's interest and hence make them finish the article and understand the concept better. He ends with this which is not how you indoctrinate someone: "Where does this leave us? Well, we did not manage to prove the existence of God, nor prove his non-existence. (I hope you are not too disappointed!) But that’s par for the course in philosophy – it rarely proves anything conclusively. Instead, I hope I have given you some sense of what philosophical reasoning is like, and how that reasoning can be stimulated and enhanced by the use of various heuristics. Along the way, we saw some instances of what followed from what (or not), exposed some sophisms, spotted some fallacies, and policed some of our reasoning." The fact is that our brains have been so incessantly bombarded with propaganda from different places that we start noticing it even when none exists. In other words, Apophenia.
- nercht12 10y ago
  >> The fact is that our brains have been so incessantly bombarded with propaganda from different places that we start noticing it even when none exists. In other words, Apophenia. An interesting point. I would say that everyone does have something they want you to believe - even if it's just pure skepticism - That's the point of teaching, after all (or you just find it fun to talk). We are trying to share what we believe is true, even if that belief is that we can't definitively say anything is true. I used to think such a stance as equality for both ends was being open-minded, but to some people (especially those with a firm opinion, be it wrong or right), I came across as promoting what they considered horribly wrong. They think that alot of (um, all of their) ideas are provable, definitive truth, so arguing against that point is - at least to them - "indoctrination" of a different kind. Funny how that all works out, no?

by jawns 10y ago

GavinMcG 10y ago

Why not say which camp you think the author falls into? You're practically doing so by raising the issue specifically in relation to this piece, and you could have stuck with "here's another tool...". What's the virtue of being coy?

andkon 10y ago

I mean the great thing about fallacies is their content isn't important. It's their structure that makes them flawed in leading to the truth. The examples, as a result, are something you can safely ignore, whether or not they're ones you agree with. For what it's worth, learning to notice the underlying structure of an argument is probably a far more important philosophical skill than noticing that your interlocutor doesn't share your political viewpoints.

adrianratnapala 10y ago
We humans tend to train ourselves to subject opposing arguments to rigorous analysis while letting arguments we like off the hook. Learning about fallacies using examples we like is particularly likely to encourage this habit.

trendroid 10y ago

>I won't say which camp I think Prof. Hájek falls into with this Aeon piece The way you put it in this comment, it may feel to some that you are suggesting the author is trying to indoctrinate. I highly recommend people to read the article itself to find that out. It's doing no such thing in my opinion and makes sure to not sound like having an agenda. The author may simply choose some examples that happen to increase reader's interest and hence make them finish the article and understand the concept better. He ends with this which is not how you indoctrinate someone: "Where does this leave us? Well, we did not manage to prove the existence of God, nor prove his non-existence. (I hope you are not too disappointed!) But that’s par for the course in philosophy – it rarely proves anything conclusively. Instead, I hope I have given you some sense of what philosophical reasoning is like, and how that reasoning can be stimulated and enhanced by the use of various heuristics. Along the way, we saw some instances of what followed from what (or not), exposed some sophisms, spotted some fallacies, and policed some of our reasoning." The fact is that our brains have been so incessantly bombarded with propaganda from different places that we start noticing it even when none exists. In other words, Apophenia.

nercht12 10y ago
>> The fact is that our brains have been so incessantly bombarded with propaganda from different places that we start noticing it even when none exists. In other words, Apophenia. An interesting point. I would say that everyone does have something they want you to believe - even if it's just pure skepticism - That's the point of teaching, after all (or you just find it fun to talk). We are trying to share what we believe is true, even if that belief is that we can't definitively say anything is true. I used to think such a stance as equality for both ends was being open-minded, but to some people (especially those with a firm opinion, be it wrong or right), I came across as promoting what they considered horribly wrong. They think that alot of (um, all of their) ideas are provable, definitive truth, so arguing against that point is - at least to them - "indoctrination" of a different kind. Funny how that all works out, no?