Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Author's Anti-"Blink" Book Details the Decline of Critical Thinking
I've noticed for a while that people can't follow argumentation. Many don't understand the reductio ad absurdum form of argumentation doesn't equate two things. In the Intelligent Design debate (sorry, I have to go here) you had people arguing that detecting design is not scientific. They were confusing the implications of a conclusion with the conclusion itself. The judge in the Dover case relied on the genetic logical fallacy and everyone thought that was good grounds for overturning the Dover policy on 1st amendment grounds.
When you add these logical mistakes to disagreement about facts (which you will always have), you have problems. If you can't even understand the form and structure of my argument, how are we going to have a productive conversation?
I've noticed for a while that people can't follow argumentation. Many don't understand the reductio ad absurdum form of argumentation doesn't equate two things. In the Intelligent Design debate (sorry, I have to go here) you had people arguing that detecting design is not scientific. They were confusing the implications of a conclusion with the conclusion itself. The judge in the Dover case relied on the genetic logical fallacy and everyone thought that was good grounds for overturning the Dover policy on 1st amendment grounds.
When you add these logical mistakes to disagreement about facts (which you will always have), you have problems. If you can't even understand the form and structure of my argument, how are we going to have a productive conversation?
