Please post your questions in the comment section.
best
Norman Schultz
Monday, December 5, 2016
Monday, November 7, 2016
1. Reconstruct Nietzsche's theory of the struggle between master's and slave's morality and explain this with regard to current examples from our current time.
2. Discuss Foucault's idea of discipline and how it replaces older practices of punishment. Find a current example and explain.
3. Discuss Nietzsche's theory of punishment and apply it to the problem of prisons in our society.
4. Explain Foucault's theory of prisons and discuss the status of prisons in our society.
5. Discuss Nietzsche's theory of punishment and apply it to the idea of punishment in our current society.
More difficult
Compare Nietzsche's master's morality after the revaluation of values with Plato's concept of Justice.
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
I think, I am, I exist - Another writing prompt.
After the deconstruction of the basic foundations (the senses, imagination, and understanding), Descartes makes an argument for the only foundation of sciences: The I-Think.
The argument is structured as a reduction ad absurdum. This means that he starts with an assumption that will lead to a contradiction later, and thus disproves the original assumption.
Descartes starts with the assumption: "I am is a deception." This means that even "I exist" is something that might be a deception by an evil demon.
A deception, however, includes that somebody must be deceived. Even an evil demon is not deceiving nobody. If we take this into account it means that the evil demon deceives somebody of being himself.
This, however, is a contradiction, since the one who is deceived cannot be deceived of being the one who is deceived. If this is, therefore, a contradiction the original assumption must be false and its opposite must be true.
The opposite is: I am not a deception.
From this follows that even the strongest doubt cannot destroy the belief that I am, and thus I am, is an indubitable assumption. This "I am" is in the mode of thinking, since it tries to deny itself by virtue of thoughts. From this follows: I think, I exist.
6 Minutes, 1 minute revised
The argument is structured as a reduction ad absurdum. This means that he starts with an assumption that will lead to a contradiction later, and thus disproves the original assumption.
Descartes starts with the assumption: "I am is a deception." This means that even "I exist" is something that might be a deception by an evil demon.
A deception, however, includes that somebody must be deceived. Even an evil demon is not deceiving nobody. If we take this into account it means that the evil demon deceives somebody of being himself.
This, however, is a contradiction, since the one who is deceived cannot be deceived of being the one who is deceived. If this is, therefore, a contradiction the original assumption must be false and its opposite must be true.
The opposite is: I am not a deception.
From this follows that even the strongest doubt cannot destroy the belief that I am, and thus I am, is an indubitable assumption. This "I am" is in the mode of thinking, since it tries to deny itself by virtue of thoughts. From this follows: I think, I exist.
6 Minutes, 1 minute revised
Proof of my existence (Reductio ad absurdum)
1. Assumption: The proposition “I am“ is a deception
2. Nevertheless, a deception means that somebody is deceived
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Therefore: I am deceived of being deceived
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a contradiction, since I am the one who is deceived, so I am actually not deceived, I exist
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Conclusion: There must be something that is deceived that is me… this is a claim for existence
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Argument for Existence
2nd Meditation (Descartes), Specific Argument of Existence, A-Part
Result of 1st Meditation: Knowledge that nothing is certain?
No, because at least: I am I
Proof of my existence (Reductio ad absurdum)
1. Assumption: The proposition “I am“ is a deception
2. Nevertheless, a deception means that somebody is deceived
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Therefore: I am deceived of being deceived
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a contradiction, since I am the one who is deceived, so I am actually not deceived, I exist
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Conclusion: There must be something that is deceived that is me… this is a claim for existence
Descartes, 10 Minute Prompt
Explain what is the content and the method of the Descartesian deconstruction, and explain the three steps of his deconstruction.
The goal of Descartes' Meditation is to give a new foundation to science, because if the foundation is unstable the house of sciences might be in danger. For this goal he uses the method of methodological doubt, this means that he rejects something as false if it has we have the slightest doubt about its truth. At the same time, he wants to find the foundation as efficiently as possible so that he does not criticize everything. Instead, he systematically attacks the most basic foundations.
The deconstruction follows three steps:
1) He attacks the senses because they seem to be most important for research. The senses, however, just give us knowledge from induction that means they only give us probably knowledge about objects. Since they, however, have deceived us already they cannot be trusted.
Transition: Even though the senses have deceived us, Descartes tries to argue that the images in our head might have been perceived by a transformation. The senses transform a presupposed real object outside of us so that we have an image in our head. If we understand this mechanism, we might be able to infer back to the real object. This is called a metaphysical realism.
2) Descartes rejects also this position, because our images might not have been caused by something outside, but they are the results of our imagination as if we only dream them. So he also rejects this foundation.
Transition to 3: Even though we could be dreaming, dreams, however, must be built on elements. We do not invent all of our dreams. So that these elements could be assumed to be real.
3) Descartes rejects this idea, because these elements could have been put by an evil demon into our mind. So we know them by convention and don't know whether they are really true. Because he has the slightest doubt he also rejects them as a foundation.
8 Minutes.
The goal of Descartes' Meditation is to give a new foundation to science, because if the foundation is unstable the house of sciences might be in danger. For this goal he uses the method of methodological doubt, this means that he rejects something as false if it has we have the slightest doubt about its truth. At the same time, he wants to find the foundation as efficiently as possible so that he does not criticize everything. Instead, he systematically attacks the most basic foundations.
The deconstruction follows three steps:
1) He attacks the senses because they seem to be most important for research. The senses, however, just give us knowledge from induction that means they only give us probably knowledge about objects. Since they, however, have deceived us already they cannot be trusted.
Transition: Even though the senses have deceived us, Descartes tries to argue that the images in our head might have been perceived by a transformation. The senses transform a presupposed real object outside of us so that we have an image in our head. If we understand this mechanism, we might be able to infer back to the real object. This is called a metaphysical realism.
2) Descartes rejects also this position, because our images might not have been caused by something outside, but they are the results of our imagination as if we only dream them. So he also rejects this foundation.
Transition to 3: Even though we could be dreaming, dreams, however, must be built on elements. We do not invent all of our dreams. So that these elements could be assumed to be real.
3) Descartes rejects this idea, because these elements could have been put by an evil demon into our mind. So we know them by convention and don't know whether they are really true. Because he has the slightest doubt he also rejects them as a foundation.
8 Minutes.
Friday, September 2, 2016
The Evil-Demon-Argument
Transitioning argument from the senses, and imagination to understanding:
After having demonstrated that we can neither trust the senses, nor our images as representations of real objects, Descartes tries to find another ground for sciences, namely understanding (rationality). So even though we might be trapped in a dream, dreams are composed of elements and these elements are simple. So we can, for example, invent, different objects that are combinations of simple elements, but can we also invent elements?
For example, objects have colors, but can you invent a new color in a dream? Can you invent new shapes?
The following picture resembles an absurd labyrinth, but despite its absurdity it uses elements, in order to be represented in our mind.
So Descartes concludes that the simple elements might qualify as foundations for sciences, but he can also find doubt about this.
The Evil-Demon
So we can believe in the simple elements of understanding. These elements include arithmetic sentences like 2+2=4, geometrical shapes, or even the method of deduction. These statements are evident, but this is not necessarily an indicator that they are true.
The simple task of teaching a child of let us say 4 years the sentence 2+2=4 is much more difficult then we expect. Usually children can count until 4, but they cannot understand what it means to build a some. Numbers are not simple truths, but actually presuppose a complex set of different skills. Because we have trained this sentence for thousands of times, since our early school days, the sentence occurs as evident to us. But could it be that the school has deceived us into believing such simple sentences, so that we believe they are without really knowing this?
The following picture represents this problem.
So the question of Descartes is legitimate. It could be that an evil teacher, or an evil demon has put these truths in our mind.
Since Descartes finds the slightest doubt, he dismisses the belief in understanding as a whole.
Further Sources:
Further Sources:
- Stories of different demons and paradoxes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_(thought_experiment)
- It is always good to be informed on Realism, a central concept of our time http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/#2
- The wikipedia page gives background information on the evil demon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Descartes' Dream-Argument - What is Wonderland? What is Truth?
After having dismissed the inductive character of our senses as insufficient to be a stable foundation for our house of knowledge, Descartes leads us to the question of imagination. This means maybe we cannot trust the senses, but the picture we have in our head are representations of real things that entered us through a certain kind of transformation. The idea is that if we know the kind of transformation, then we could easily infer back to the original reality that caused us to have these images. Descartes, however, disproves this argument of a so-called Metaphysical Realism by his famous dream-argument.
The Dream Argument
Descartes poses the question whether we can trust our imagination as results from a perception or whether all of our images could be the result of a dream. Descartes' thought experiment reminds us of the following movie.
What are the conclusions? As far as nobody like Morpheus frees us from our common existence, it might be hard to conclude that there is a reality distinct from our imagination. It remains a possibility that everything is a dream, and thus imagination cannot be a foundation for a secure science.
This teaches us the following lesson: It is at least difficult to infer back to an original point of reference from which our images that we in our head originate.
Please, however, keep in mind: this does not say that we have, first, no knowledge, and, second, Descartes also does not say that reality does not exist, he only states that we should suspend our belief and not take beliefs like images as foundational for our sciences.
Further Links: What is a "Metaphysical Realism"? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-sem-challenge/
I highly recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia as a reliable resource for basic philosophical problems. The article on realism is very helpful: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/
Quote on Realism:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/322288917055400292/
The costs of misperception can be very high: You choose the wrong leaders, you decide to not vaccinate your children, or you ruin your life because of poor judgement. Media are certainly working on ourselves emotionally. If you learn how to argue, you do not learn for others. You also do not learn for being better than others, but you learn for yourself, in order to avoid mistakes for your own life.
Plato, an ancient philosopher who we will study later this semester, had a similar idea. According to him, we are chained in a cave, and all the truths we see are shadows produced by anonymous people in the background. This idea resembles very much Descartes' idea. For both philosophers the way out of this cave is walked by virtue of reason.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ryGPPc5Z5Ng/hqdefault.jpg
The question remains, however, how do we leave this concretely?
http://67.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzbcmu7dH61rpxft9o1_400.jpg
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/040/017/91d.jpg
The Dream Argument
Descartes poses the question whether we can trust our imagination as results from a perception or whether all of our images could be the result of a dream. Descartes' thought experiment reminds us of the following movie.
What are the conclusions? As far as nobody like Morpheus frees us from our common existence, it might be hard to conclude that there is a reality distinct from our imagination. It remains a possibility that everything is a dream, and thus imagination cannot be a foundation for a secure science.
This teaches us the following lesson: It is at least difficult to infer back to an original point of reference from which our images that we in our head originate.
Please, however, keep in mind: this does not say that we have, first, no knowledge, and, second, Descartes also does not say that reality does not exist, he only states that we should suspend our belief and not take beliefs like images as foundational for our sciences.
Further Links: What is a "Metaphysical Realism"? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-sem-challenge/
I highly recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia as a reliable resource for basic philosophical problems. The article on realism is very helpful: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/
"In addition, it is misleading to think that there is a straightforward and clear-cut choice between being a realist and a non-realist about a particular subject matter. It is rather the case that one can be more-or-less realist about a particular subject matter. Also, there are many different forms that realism and non-realism can take."Prima facie, these questions might not be so interesting to you, but there are some consequences for our project to develop a critical mindset.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/322288917055400292/
The costs of misperception can be very high: You choose the wrong leaders, you decide to not vaccinate your children, or you ruin your life because of poor judgement. Media are certainly working on ourselves emotionally. If you learn how to argue, you do not learn for others. You also do not learn for being better than others, but you learn for yourself, in order to avoid mistakes for your own life.
Plato, an ancient philosopher who we will study later this semester, had a similar idea. According to him, we are chained in a cave, and all the truths we see are shadows produced by anonymous people in the background. This idea resembles very much Descartes' idea. For both philosophers the way out of this cave is walked by virtue of reason.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ryGPPc5Z5Ng/hqdefault.jpg
The question remains, however, how do we leave this concretely?
http://67.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzbcmu7dH61rpxft9o1_400.jpg
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/040/017/91d.jpg
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Descartes - Guiding Questions, and some Advices on Notetaking
You find the study questions below the general information of how you should take notes
Before we come to the guiding questions, you might want to question and develop your learning techniques. First, you should never make the mistake and misjudge your skills. It is not true that you are not a math person, or that you have bad memory. Instead you either haven't been provided with the opportunity to develop these skills during your life, or you haven't used your chances to develop these skills by yourself. In any case, you should make clear to yourself that you can still learn these skills, and I would like to help you with this as best as I can.
You might think that you are typing faster on a laptop, but writing longhand gives you a few advantages. So, for example, you have to be more selective. It is true that students who use a pen write less than students using a computer, but exactly this makes them more effective. If you have time please look up the following study on this issue: The pen is mightier than the keyboard, or the easier text from the Wallstreet Journal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/can-handwriting-make-you-smarter-1459784659
What might be the reason that you feel taking notes with a laptop is more effective?
"Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis in 2012 found that laptop note-takers tested immediately after a class could recall more of a lecture and performed slightly better than their pen-pushing classmates when tested on facts presented in class." http://www.wsj.com/articles/can-handwriting-make-you-smarter-1459784659So it is true that in the first instance you remember better. But learning is not about writing it down, but to condense it to the essentials and you have to participate in this process, in order to learn.
It is also not necessarily better to take notes like this:
If you participate in my way of taking notes, you will be introduced to a more productive way of how to follow classes. Please use this opportunity.
Study Technique:
I highly recommend you to read a book that teaches you on how to become a straight A student, even if you don't intend to become such a student. The book, however, will suggest a lot of tricks that either save time, or that might make it easier to get a better grade with the same effort that you put into your work right now.
Study Questions might help us to get closer to the text. I selected some helpful questions:
General Questions: These questions are asked in order to sharpen your general idea of the text and to explain them together with the course content.
- A. In very general words, what is Meditation 1 about?
- B. What could Descartes' "methodological doubt" be? Compare it to our definition of critical/critique!
- C. Why would it be Descartes’ fault if he did not start the investigation?
Specific Questions:
- Why might the author consider himself to be guilty if he did not start his investigation of basic truths?
- Does Descartes doubt everything in particular? (Explain why not!)
- Why can't we accept that the senses give us truths?
- By which criterion could you differentiate between being awake and sleeping and what is the dream argument supposed to demonstrate?
- What does Descartes demonstrate with his example of the artists?
- How could simple truths like 2+2=4 be wrong according to Descartes?
- Why can't it be God who deceives us?
- What is the evil-demon-argument supposed to show?
What is the goal of Descartes’ Meditations?
The main questions with regard to the senses, imagination and understanding (source, see below):
1. For Descartes, why can't knowledge gained through sense experience be trusted as the basis of knowledge?
2. How are the doubts raised by our experience of dreaming different from, and more profound than, doubts raised about errors in sense experience?
3. How is the evil genius argument intended to be broader in scope than either the arguments about doubting sense experience or dreaming?
philosophy.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Reading%20Questions%2009.doc
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Discussion of the Value of Philosophy
"The Science Guy" dismissing philosophy: Philosophy is dismissed by various scientists who, however, do not really study philosophy and who thus also do not really understand what philosophy is about.
Does he have the qualification to talk about the subject?
- "studied mechanical engineering at Cornell University"
- "took an astronomy class taught by Carl Sagan[10]"
- "graduated with a B.S. in mechanical engineering in 1977.[11]"
- "began his career in Seattle at Boeing, where, among other things, he starred in training films and developed a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor for the 747" [Whatever that might mean]
- "early 2000s" "development of a small sundial that was included in the Mars Exploration Rovermissions.[3]"
- "From 2005 to 2010 [...] vice president of The Planetary Society, an organization that advocatesspace science research and the exploration of other planets, particularly Mars.[35]" [... in 2010] second Executive Director
- "a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a U.S. non-profit scientific and educational organization whose aim is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.[47]"
AND THIS IS PHILOSOPHY; quote Wikipedia:
Which fallacy did I commit?
Ad Hominem Fallacy:
Ad Hominem Fallacy means to focus on the person, instead of discussing the argument.
Indications for counter-arguments:
- Philosophers have better GRE Scores (standardized test, necessary for admission into Graduate School)
Verbal Section: Students with the intent to study philosophy outperform their peers tremendously
Math Section: Solid results for students of philosophy, but it should be better
Analytical Writing: Again best results in this section
Source: http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=5112019841346388353
Schoolkids get better: http://qz.com/635002/teaching-kids-philosophy-makes-them-smarter-in-math-and-english/?utm_source=qzfbarchive
Another standardized testing: https://www.mcneese.edu/f/c/4cf4656e/WSPAdmissionsPerformance.pdf
So what might be the motivation of other branches to dismiss philosophy?
1) They might not know what philosophy really is and are killing straw men.
2) They might see philosophy as the strongest competitor in giving a holistic interpretation of the world
3) They deny the basic methods of philosophy without being aware of their own methods.
Twitter response from Existential Comics
Sciene Guy says that philosophy is not a good career path, here are some qualitative reports about philosophers in silicon valley: http://forbesindia.com/printcontent/40955. Philosophy is regarded as a complex subject that benefits major companies to address complex problems.
Main problem of my article (despite the sloppy quoting):
1) Sources should be better. Peer-reviewed analyses are the gold-standard for knowledge
2) BIAS in selection, that means the author (I mean myself, but it sounds fancier to call myself an author, and like a person who is someone else) only searched for information that confirmed his viewpoint.
This is a psychological fallacy.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/03/upshot/a-quick-puzzle-to-test-your-problem-solving.html?WT.mc_id=2015-KWP-INTL_AUD_DEV&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=IntlAudDev&kwp_0=32100&kwp_4=199133&kwp_1=177269&_r=1&abt=0002&abg=0
Last and probably least - A trivial argument why you should choose philosophy:
Philosophers are the sexiest subjects (source: http://news.bitofnews.com/professors-in-these-subjects-are-most-likely-to-be-described-as-sexy/?utm_sourc=newsletter)
Does he have the qualification to talk about the subject?
- "studied mechanical engineering at Cornell University"
- "took an astronomy class taught by Carl Sagan[10]"
- "graduated with a B.S. in mechanical engineering in 1977.[11]"
- "began his career in Seattle at Boeing, where, among other things, he starred in training films and developed a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor for the 747" [Whatever that might mean]
- "early 2000s" "development of a small sundial that was included in the Mars Exploration Rovermissions.[3]"
- "From 2005 to 2010 [...] vice president of The Planetary Society, an organization that advocatesspace science research and the exploration of other planets, particularly Mars.[35]" [... in 2010] second Executive Director
- "a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a U.S. non-profit scientific and educational organization whose aim is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.[47]"
AND THIS IS PHILOSOPHY; quote Wikipedia:
"Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief.[1][2] It is often directed at domains, such as morality (moral skepticism), religion (skepticism about the existence of God), or the nature of knowledge (skepticism of knowledge).[3] Formally, skepticism as a topic arises in the context of philosophy, particularly epistemology, although it has also found its way into popular-level social and political issues like climate science, religion, pseudoscience."I emphasize his "concern [... of] scientific illiteracy ... you [the public] don't have enough rudimentary knowledge of the universe to evaluate claims."[48] , however, I claim that he also does not have the instruments to do so.
Which fallacy did I commit?
Ad Hominem Fallacy:
Ad Hominem Fallacy means to focus on the person, instead of discussing the argument.
Indications for counter-arguments:
- Philosophers have better GRE Scores (standardized test, necessary for admission into Graduate School)
Verbal Section: Students with the intent to study philosophy outperform their peers tremendously
Math Section: Solid results for students of philosophy, but it should be better
Analytical Writing: Again best results in this section
Source: http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=5112019841346388353
Schoolkids get better: http://qz.com/635002/teaching-kids-philosophy-makes-them-smarter-in-math-and-english/?utm_source=qzfbarchive
Another standardized testing: https://www.mcneese.edu/f/c/4cf4656e/WSPAdmissionsPerformance.pdf
So what might be the motivation of other branches to dismiss philosophy?
1) They might not know what philosophy really is and are killing straw men.
2) They might see philosophy as the strongest competitor in giving a holistic interpretation of the world
3) They deny the basic methods of philosophy without being aware of their own methods.
Twitter response from Existential Comics
Job Opportunities for Philosophers"Why does philosophy matter?"— Existential Comics (@existentialcoms) August 5, 2015
"I don't know, why does science matter?"
"Well because scie-"
"Annnnnnnd you are doing philosophy."
Sciene Guy says that philosophy is not a good career path, here are some qualitative reports about philosophers in silicon valley: http://forbesindia.com/printcontent/40955. Philosophy is regarded as a complex subject that benefits major companies to address complex problems.
Main problem of my article (despite the sloppy quoting):
1) Sources should be better. Peer-reviewed analyses are the gold-standard for knowledge
2) BIAS in selection, that means the author (I mean myself, but it sounds fancier to call myself an author, and like a person who is someone else) only searched for information that confirmed his viewpoint.
This is a psychological fallacy.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/03/upshot/a-quick-puzzle-to-test-your-problem-solving.html?WT.mc_id=2015-KWP-INTL_AUD_DEV&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=IntlAudDev&kwp_0=32100&kwp_4=199133&kwp_1=177269&_r=1&abt=0002&abg=0
Last and probably least - A trivial argument why you should choose philosophy:
Philosophers are the sexiest subjects (source: http://news.bitofnews.com/professors-in-these-subjects-are-most-likely-to-be-described-as-sexy/?utm_sourc=newsletter)
Foucault Materialien
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/fulllist/second/en229/marxfctintros_/foucault_reader.pdf
Zusammenfassung und andere Ideen
https://monoskop.org/images/4/43/Foucault_Michel_Discipline_and_Punish_The_Birth_of_the_Prison_1977_1995.pdf
https://zulfahmed.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/disciplineandpunish.pdf
Zusammenfassung und andere Ideen
https://monoskop.org/images/4/43/Foucault_Michel_Discipline_and_Punish_The_Birth_of_the_Prison_1977_1995.pdf
https://zulfahmed.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/disciplineandpunish.pdf
Introduction to Fallacies
A number of fallacies should be known, in order to know your own fallacies. They will not necessarily help you in discussions except you are together with friends who pursue knowledge with you, and who do not see the argument as a game of dominance.
Again: You know the structure of arguments for your own benefit. It is not useful to impress, make friends, or to win games of dominance.
http://cheezburger.com/683525/meme-of-the-day-logical-fallacy-ref-will-help-you-keep-internet-arguments-fair
Not all fallacies are necessarily fallacies that are worth to be memorized. You should instead learn of how to identify fallacies with common sense, and your inborn capacity of reason, or critical thinking.
Here is a list of fallacies that might be interesting to
you: http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#adhoc
Source: https://teamresearch.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/philosoraptor-meme-generator-circular-logic-is-the-best-logic-because-it-is-circular-fa4a24.jpg?w=289&h=289
There is one important fallacy, however, that you should know.
The Fallacy Fallacy
The fallacy fallacy means that you might find a fallacy in the opponents argument and for that reason you dismiss his entire position. Only because you find a fallacy does, however, not mean that your opponent is wrong.
This is a very good podcast on the fallacy fallacy that I can recommend to you: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2016/01/22/yanss-067-the-fallacy-fallacy/
How to argue?
Here are some points on how you should argue. Notice that your argument should generally be directed against the central point of the other argument. All other points of an argument are minor in comparison to what is its central point. The lowest forms of refutation are also not good ways to argue at all.
Society's Puzzle
So does it bring anything to point out fallacies of your friends all the time?
Probably it does not. Forming a belief system does not depend on a single argument, but it includes a life project that is meaningful to that person, and people identify with this. For this reason, they will not drop their opinions, because you have a valid point. You need to accept that knowledge is produced in much larger processes.
My unqualified advice is, therefore: try to perform arguments that connect other facts to the larger picture. Do not try to disprove somebody. Focus on developing knowledge with somebody for yourself.
Emotional Connection
Instead of disagreeing with people, it is better to make a connection with somebody else. It is more important to connect with people than fighting over different beliefs, even if you have the better argument. Try to agree with people who have not the same position. At a certain moment of agreement, you start producing more informed opinions. This does not mean that you should accept racist beliefs, or that you need to tolerate inadequate positions, but that you accept the other as a person who has formed a position based on a life story.
So rather seek for emotional connection that is not solely based on your interests, preoccupations, and opinions. Very interesting approaches are found here:
http://acuriousquestion.com/ - an app that suggests interesting questions
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/fashion/no-37-big-wedding-or-small.html - 36 Questions that make you feel in love with another person (based on scientific experiments).
The Scientific Discourse
This discourse is lead to extend our knowledge and for this reason, we should be interested in disproving ourselves (see the confirmation bias that we have discussed before). The scientific discourse is different from other forms of connecting.
Galileos Fallacy (an interesting play)
Here is how Galileo could not bring his point through, because of certain dogma. We have to accept that dogma are historically grown structures that cannot be simply overturned. So we have to learn how to work from within:
Galileo: https://books.google.com/books?id=dW1_AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&dq=galileo+number+of+planeten&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJssbp99fOAhXHCh4KHUAtBNQQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=galileo%20number%20of%20planeten&f=false
Further Links on Fallacies
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/
http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#adhoc
Again: You know the structure of arguments for your own benefit. It is not useful to impress, make friends, or to win games of dominance.
http://cheezburger.com/683525/meme-of-the-day-logical-fallacy-ref-will-help-you-keep-internet-arguments-fair
Not all fallacies are necessarily fallacies that are worth to be memorized. You should instead learn of how to identify fallacies with common sense, and your inborn capacity of reason, or critical thinking.
Here is a list of fallacies that might be interesting to
you: http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#adhoc
Source: https://teamresearch.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/philosoraptor-meme-generator-circular-logic-is-the-best-logic-because-it-is-circular-fa4a24.jpg?w=289&h=289
There is one important fallacy, however, that you should know.
The Fallacy Fallacy
The fallacy fallacy means that you might find a fallacy in the opponents argument and for that reason you dismiss his entire position. Only because you find a fallacy does, however, not mean that your opponent is wrong.
This is a very good podcast on the fallacy fallacy that I can recommend to you: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2016/01/22/yanss-067-the-fallacy-fallacy/
How to argue?
Here are some points on how you should argue. Notice that your argument should generally be directed against the central point of the other argument. All other points of an argument are minor in comparison to what is its central point. The lowest forms of refutation are also not good ways to argue at all.
Society's Puzzle
So does it bring anything to point out fallacies of your friends all the time?
Probably it does not. Forming a belief system does not depend on a single argument, but it includes a life project that is meaningful to that person, and people identify with this. For this reason, they will not drop their opinions, because you have a valid point. You need to accept that knowledge is produced in much larger processes.
My unqualified advice is, therefore: try to perform arguments that connect other facts to the larger picture. Do not try to disprove somebody. Focus on developing knowledge with somebody for yourself.
Emotional Connection
Instead of disagreeing with people, it is better to make a connection with somebody else. It is more important to connect with people than fighting over different beliefs, even if you have the better argument. Try to agree with people who have not the same position. At a certain moment of agreement, you start producing more informed opinions. This does not mean that you should accept racist beliefs, or that you need to tolerate inadequate positions, but that you accept the other as a person who has formed a position based on a life story.
So rather seek for emotional connection that is not solely based on your interests, preoccupations, and opinions. Very interesting approaches are found here:
http://acuriousquestion.com/ - an app that suggests interesting questions
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/fashion/no-37-big-wedding-or-small.html - 36 Questions that make you feel in love with another person (based on scientific experiments).
The Scientific Discourse
This discourse is lead to extend our knowledge and for this reason, we should be interested in disproving ourselves (see the confirmation bias that we have discussed before). The scientific discourse is different from other forms of connecting.
Galileos Fallacy (an interesting play)
Here is how Galileo could not bring his point through, because of certain dogma. We have to accept that dogma are historically grown structures that cannot be simply overturned. So we have to learn how to work from within:
Galileo: https://books.google.com/books?id=dW1_AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&dq=galileo+number+of+planeten&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJssbp99fOAhXHCh4KHUAtBNQQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=galileo%20number%20of%20planeten&f=false
Further Links on Fallacies
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/
http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#adhoc
Powerpoint - Paradigm for Teaching?
Student: Can I have the Power Point Presentation?
Me: Yes and no. The slides will not help you significantly with the course. This course is based on interaction with the course material in class. This means the more you interact in class, the better you will perform in the end. It is also highly advised to develop a creative way of taking notes.
There is a large controversy emerging on this subject:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/23/powerpoint-thought-students-bullet-points-information
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)