Proposed Table of Contents for a book on Critical Thinking

[Mock Turtle]

Politics tends to lure people into emotional thinking; fear, hate, arrogance. conviction, etc., which often leads to dogmatic and group think connected by emotions. Simply by knowing if someone or a group is using emotional thinking, tells us that there may be cross contamination in their arguments, that they may not even be aware of, that is reinforcing an emotional loop; neural chemical release induction.

Is this why so many intellectuals (the more critical thinkers) tend to be left-leaning and those on the right tending to use more emotive language, so as to appeal to the less thinking?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is this why so many intellectuals (the more critical thinkers) tend to be left-leaning and those on the right tending to use more emotive language, so as to appeal to the less thinking?

No, not really. They just appeal to different emotions and reasoning about emotions.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No, not really. They just appeal to different emotions and reasoning about emotions.

Gonna prove that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Gonna prove that?

No, but I can give evidence for it. Just learn to notice how some of our posters claim that science is the best method to understand the world.
The problem is that science, best, method, understand and world are all without strong objective referents and end in an emotion, best.

Your group and you are a part of it do it with some variance, but allways end in effect that objectivity is better than subjectivity. That problem is that better is subjective.
But if you don't doubt with skepticism and critical thinking how better works, you won't notice it.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, not really. They just appeal to different emotions and reasoning about emotions.

There is, however, a correlation between levels of education and more left-wing views. It's by no means universal but it's there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is, however, a correlation between levels of education and more left-wing views. It's by no means universal but it's there.

Yeah, but it depends on the education in effect as far as I can tell.

And there also seems to be a vairance between natural and formal science versus the soft ones.

 

[Augustus]

I grew up in an ultra-conservative society, and I can tell you that at least in my case, yes, I needed to read about logical fallacies before I could spot certain examples that may seem clear to some people. Some heavily dogmatic worldviews just foster particularly misleading thought processes that can take active effort to later unpick and temper with a decent understanding of how our biases work.

I find they tend to turn what should be a rough heuristic for thinking into a kind of iron law.

Highlighting an expert consensus is a meaningful argument, yet might get dismissed as an “appeal to authority”.

Pointing out that others do something is often meaningful context, but can be dismissed as “whataboutism”.

Most “fallacies” aren’t actually fallacies, and the only way people can confuse them is via knowledge of fallacies.

I just don’t see their value as being taught in general for popular usage.

So for example saying “there are often more than 2 alternatives” is better than false dilemma.

“While we should pay attention to genuine expertise, we shouldn’t assume that everything said by experts must be correct” is better tha appeal to authority.

Things like strawmen or false equivalency are always better explained based on then individual case without invoking the fallacy.

One of the most important tool of critical thinking is knowing and understanding fallacies and spotting them - in your own arguments.

That’s fair enough.

No one should ever accuse another of committing a fallacy, simply explain it without the jargon. If people want to apply them to their own ideas as an aid to thought that’s up them.

Although I still think people will use them when thinking of what others say and so are better off without.

 

[Heyo]

That’s fair enough.

No one should ever accuse another of committing a fallacy, simply explain it without the jargon. If people want to apply them to their own ideas as an aid to thought that’s up them.

Although I still think people will use them when thinking of what others say and so are better off without.

I agree to a point. When arguing in a mixed environment like RF just calling "fallacy" isn't very helpful.
Among people educated people it simply saves time.

 

[Augustus]

Among people educated people it simply saves time.

Not if they are imagining the fallacy.

Educated people are as prone to groupthink and other bias as everyone else.