3 ms·
He's redefining sophistry. 1 is anecdotal fallacy. 2 and 3 are reframing. I'd say all are forms of confirmation bias, but that requires good faith in debating
by jstarfish 3y ago
He's redefining sophistry.
1 is anecdotal fallacy. 2 and 3 are reframing.
I'd say all are forms of confirmation bias, but that requires good faith in debating. The point of all modern internet discourse is to "win" by any means available, not to debate with respect for logic and reason. (Or even Truth.)
Every high schooler figures out you can cite any source remotely related to your topic and write an essay making the exact opposite point. It goes unchecked so it becomes normalized.
Since the internet is overrun with overeducated adult children, we're now predictably plagued with fallacious discourse and fraud.
- npunt 3y agoAgree, tho it can also be good to have a more narrowly defined & catchy concept handle [1] to discuss specific phenomena, even if it's just a name that represents a bundle of things we already understand. Can make discussion move a bit quicker and bring some more people to understanding. I do like the reframe focused on evidence as the object since it gets us to think more about how those objects move about and come to us, which moves us toward the concrete realm of how products work. Personally I think it's much easier to change products than people, so ways to frame problems in terms of product can be helpful. [1] https://notes.andymatuschak.org/z3b7sidNrEkNaY9qfGwZjwz https://notes.andymatuschak.org/z3b7sidNrEkNaY9qfGwZjwz