I sincerely hope you didn't fall victim to the "critical thinking is innate" brainwashing. And if you did I sincerely hope you'll break free from it one day.
bump
>>24931556I won't though. Have fun with your pointless thread.
It's a great book, great primer on critical thinking.https://www.juristpanel.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/A-Rulebook-for-Arguments_compressed.pdfMost people on here have no critical thinking skills.And now there's an extended version with exercises.https://libgen.li/edition.php?id=138619624In this thread I wanted to discuss the erroneous idea that knowledge of logic is innate.
>>24932732>In this thread I wanted to discuss the erroneous idea that knowledge of logic is innate.It is and it isn't. If by the term "knowledge" you actually just mean "propositional knowledge", then knowledge of logic is not only learned, it arguably doesn't exist as we cannot conclusively prove we figured out the complete set of logical laws. However, what people likely mean by innate knowledge of logic is intuitive understanding that A=A, that when something hurts you then even a thoughtless child will associate the same stimulus with pain later on. It is participative knowledge.
Can you elaborate?
>>24932746no
>>24931556Those books are dumb. Either you can think on your feet or you can't. If you can't, memorizing informal fallacies and imaging they apply whenever you're wrong just makes you even more of a retard.
>>24931556I don't think that, and I saw people using rhetorics to defend all kinds of absurdities.
>>24932732>t. firm believer in "her penis" who uses the term "media literacy" unironically
>>24932932It is not about memorizing anything, you don't have to. It is more like seeing how much someone can do to make a case for a piece of shit or something blatant evil.
>>24932924Filipino kind of reply.>>24932932Yeah. I don't think you can teach adults to think logically and critically in any meaningful way. Mostly because cognitive weak-points just override critical thinking most of the time anyway. Look at the intelligent adults swearing that a rabbi with superpowers saved humanity just because they can't handle reality.
>>24932947Fedora tipping consists of parroting other people's arguments without thinking deeply about the subject matter. Shit example when it comes to critical thinking.
>>24932940Point still stands. If you can't innately detect when someone's bullshitting reading a book isn't going to help. You either have it or you don't. It's like being good at sports.
>>24932959Not really, you can practice and learn and be better at it. Like any sport, it is not like you can sit on your fat ass and just 'be good at sports', you have to practice, professional athletes do it every day and follow a spartan routine to get every advantage they can.
>>24932966>Not really, you can practice and learn and be better at itTheoretically you can practice anything and become better at it. However, if you're a midwit there's a big chance those books will do more harm than good for reasons already stated. You'll just become a bit more of a headache for people smarter than yourself.
>>24932971I don't know, I think that the main problem with people who start studying anything is when they don't realize that they are using one view of reality. You can't grab it all with your mind, you have to look at pieces of it, one at a time. But even someone like that is better than some brain-dead retard who will be waiting for someone to tell him what he should think. At least someone like that is actually trying, have you ever thought about that? That a lot of people don't even fucking try, they don't even fucking try, it has never fucking started for them.
>>24932973>But even someone like that is better than some brain-dead retard who will be waiting for someone to tell him what he should think.Not necessarily. Mentally rigid midwits who dupe themselves into thinking they've attained an understanding they hold to be indisputable are way more draining than retards (who don't care and are thereby benign). You accidentally gave a recipe for ideological possession.
>>24931556im gonna pass on this one bro
>>24933051Try Vern Poythress. Logic, and Redeeming Reason.
>>24932732skimming, it does seem decent, with this exception:>ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance): arguing that a claim is true just because it has not been shown to be false. A classic example is this statement by Senator Joseph McCarthy when he was asked for evidence to back up his accusation that a certain person was a Communist: >I do not have much information on this except the general statement of the agency that there is nothing in the files to disprove his Communist connections.>Of course, apparently there was nothing to prove it, either.This is so totally divorced of context that it in fact *invites* the reader to engage in fallacious thinkingIf one goes to the source, that is, The Proceedings and Debates of the 81st Congress, Second Session, Vol. 96, Part II: February 3, 1950, to March 4, 1950 (in this case, February 20), one may read the following, earlier in the session than the quote above:>Mr. McCARTHY. Let me finish. I do not have a counterespionage group of my own. All I can do is pick up the information, check, and make sure it is confirmed by something in the State Department file. The Senator understands I do not have complete State Department files in these matters. I very greatly wish I did. That is one of the things I hope one of our committees will succeed in getting.[...]>The Senator from Illinois demanded, loudly, that I furnish all the names. I told him at that time that so far as I was concerned, I thought that would be improper; that I did not have all the information about these individuals. I have enough to convince me that either they are members of the Communist Party or they are giving great aid to the Communists. I may be wrong. That is why I said that unless the Senate demanded that I do so, I would not submit this publicly, but I would submit it to any committee-the Senator's committee or any other Senate committee-and would let the committee go over these in executive session. It is possible that some of these persons will get a clean bill of health. I know that some of them will not.[...]>I do not fancy at all this condemnation of an attempt to bring this matter before the Senate. I intend to give all the facts. From the information which I have before me, I agree with the intelligence agencies which have said, "These men should not be in the State Department." I agree with the intelligence agencies who said, "Do not give these men top-secret clearance.'' I may be wrong. That is why I am not naming them.[...]>If we should label one man a Communist when he is not a Communist, I think it would be too bad. However, the names are here. I shall be glad to abide by the decision of the Senate after it hears the cases, but I think the sensible thing to do would be to have an executive session and have a proper committee go over the whole situation.Clearly, he was very aware of the uncertainty in some of the cases!
>>24932989That is the whole point of it. Are you stupid? I would rather have to deal with someone that is predictable than some unpredictable retard. You don't have to argue with everyone.
>>24933140>I would rather have to deal with someone that is predictable than some unpredictable retardSkill issue.
what i didnt fall into is the 'arguments are worth making' brainwashing
>>24933784Apparently you don't think sentences are worth making either.
>>24932947>t.
Bump
>>24933790For real. They believe St Peter and 10 other of the 12 disciples of Jesus just died brutal martyrdom for fun, all while having the option to just pay lip service to the roman pantheon instead and be saved.Well, they chose eternal salvation over temporal salvation and suffered a good martyrdom.Not even going to get into the arguments from prophecy or proofs of god. Cynical nihilists must be metaphysically illiterate with no sense for beauty and truth.
critical thinking = the triviumhttps://youtu.be/AOcy6RHw7A8https://libgen.li/edition.php?id=137170227
Logic/the Trivium/critical thinking is studied in Freemasonry, in yeshivas, and in elite private schools.https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/503426619/#503426619https://archive.ph/ZR5g0The Prussian education system is all about suppressing critical thinking for the masses while teaching it to the top 0.5%. That's the education system we have.https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/517449813/#517455249https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNnqqvK2yDEFVdM_5wV4Od8kV2GaSo7jzhttps://annas-archive.org/md5/7dd390a7784e5e7507669ea271466ff7https://annas-archive.org/md5/5af2e8e2eb3a07c46df10b2de453775cMeanwhile they brainwash you to think that logic and critical thinking are innate so you won't study it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_school
>>24933089Don't know what your point is. Firstly it uses an example to teach a point. Secondly it's quite possible to commit a fallacy in one sentence, and yet contradict that in something else you said. If he made an accusation that a certain person was a Communist, was asked for evidence to back it up, and replied "I do not have much information on this except the general statement of the agency that there is nothing in the files to disprove his Communist connections." then that's a display of said fallacy regardless of what he said elsewhere, which might well be deliberate, politicians often deliberately employ fallacies as rhetoric.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
https://youtu.be/QloEJpT3i2E
https://annas-archive.org/search?q=rulebook+for+arguments+anthony+weston
>>24933051you will benefit from reading it brohttps://youtu.be/7V50xwYM-gw
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/454614.A_Rulebook_for_Arguments
>>24934265The point is that the framing is completely dishonest and does not accurately reflect either the record of the circumstances or what was actually said, and you clearly did not bother to read the source material (here's the specific page, first column, 2/3 of the way down)Before presenting the cases by number, he said this:>I shall not attempt to present a detailed case on each one, a case which would convince a jury. All I am doing is to develop sufficient evidence so that anyone who reads the RECORD will have a good idea of the number of Communists in the State Department.He was quite obviously not saying 'it is the case that #40 is guilty because there is no evidence to the contrary'Instead, he was articulating suspicion of the numbered individuals with varying degrees of evidence, and we do not know what specifically, if anything, in #40 was corroborated in his copy of the State Dept. file, or the other bases for the suspicion of #40 strictly from the record in question (if one does some digging, one can find that #40 was suspected in an unresolved investigation submitted to the House Appropriations Committee in 1947)He was not, at any point, 'asked for evidence to back up' the case of #40, or to elaborate on that case at all, which makes the framing>this statement by Senator Joseph McCarthy when he was asked for evidence to back up his accusation that a certain person was a Communistflagrantly false
>>24934389So? It's not a history book. It teaches a point. Even if it's false the point is still taught. Who cares, you could as well have had a fictional story. Trees and forest. Part of learning critical thinking is learning what is relevant and what's not. The guy who wrote the book might just have read that somewhere and used it as an example, and didn't research it very deeply. So? It's not a history book. He gets across what he wants to get across, which is what ad ignorantiam is.
>>24934402Who's motte-and-bailey-ing now?Presenting outright false information about verifiable facts strikes at the heart of the enterprise of critical thinkingAny low-information reader would be likely to receive the implicit 'witch-hunter McCarthy bad' messageIn combination with the framing, the deliberate selection of the case with the least explicit testimony in the record makes readers susceptible to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
>>24934428All politicians lie, is this news to you?
>>24934438>non-sequituryou gonna speedrun the rest of the fallacies for us?
>>24934389Why are you butt hurt about this shit?
>>24934449You're taking a tiny thing and blowing it up. It's irrelevant. He's making a point. Nobody cares about McCarthy when reading this book. It's not a history book. When I used to discuss LSAT questions there were always people who would discuss the content of the questions in great detail, forgetting what the actual question was about. You're sort of like that. You're going into the semantic content, but it's just there to convey a point. Maybe the author made an error. Shit happens. That error doesn't affect the actual matter of the book.
>>24932932>memorizing informal fallacies and imaging they apply whenever you're wrong just makes you even more of a retard>>24934428>Who's motte-and-bailey-ing now>>24934449>you gonna speedrun the rest of the fallacies for usLol.
>>24931556>I sincerely hope you didn't fall victim to the "critical thinking is innate" brainwashingi didn't major in psychology so no
>>24931556>bad arguments aren't argumentsincredible things are being said by the "logicians" aka literal minded autists
>>24934225>Logic/the Trivium/critical thinkingblud is using the trivium interchangeably with logic while sneering at rhetoric
Why did this cause so much seething
>>24935290Someone pointed out those books are for midwits and turn them into full retards.
it's not innate, but these books and the Trivium are still a waste of time. Most intelligent people don't need to study english grammar, logic, or rhetoric. They pick up these things naturally because they, y'know, read a lot.
>>24934179>Peter and 10 other of the 12 disciples of Jesus just died brutal martyrdomAka shit that never happened but very inspiring for suckers that actually did get prosecuted.
I found this cool book the other day.An Elementary Treatise on Logic: Comprising the Essential Principles and Different Modes of Reasoning in the Form of Question and Answer by Hezekiah G. Ufford, publication date 1823https://archive.org/details/anelementarytre00uffogoog
>>24936073another link for the same bookhttps://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hntk4k
>>24933080Interesting. However, there is no Muslim logic or Christian logic, there's simply logic.
>>24931556If most people can't think critically then what's the point? You aren't going to convince someone of your point with logic and "modus tollens" lol. You're going to convince them with panache, confidence, and rhetoric.
>>24931556I critically think that perhaps you are taking yourself too seriously.
>>24932959>good at sports.Bad example.
>>24934225Post Moar!
>>24936242Principles of general grammar. Comp. and arranged for the use of colleges and schools by Roemer, Jeanhttps://archive.org/details/principlesgener00roemgoogPrinciples of general grammar : adapted to the capacity of youth, and proper to serve as an introduction to the study of languages by Silvestre de Sacy, A. I. (Antoine Isaac)https://archive.org/details/principlesgener00sacygoog
