The claim - that you can dismiss what is asserted without evidence - is itself asserted without evidence. Therefore, by its own terms...
-
Except you are conveniently (for your argument) misquoting there; the quote is, “What CAN be asserted w/o evidence…”. And that is not »
That's worse. Anything *can* be asserted without evidence (including Hitchens's claim).
-
-
Yes, if you insist on the most literal-minded interpretation imaginable, which wld of course make any conversation impossible.
-
I'm not insisting it should be read as "can" - you are! If it's read as "can" it's worse, obviously. Self-defeating if it's not.
-
That’s not how it shld be read, that’s the quote. And yes, you are insisting on an interpretation that’s uncharitable and unreasonable.
-
Sorry, I don't understand what point you're trying to make - the quote is manifestly self-defeating.
-
Yes, you keep repeating that. My point: your insistence that only your interpretation is correct is highly uncritical.
-
I think we might have had this conversation before... it's ringing a few bells. I think my interpretation is entirely reasonable! :)
-
Um, yes, but what you think abt it is neither here nor there. Critical thinking ≠ being satisfied that one’s opinion is critical.
-
Right, but discussions about the purview of critical thinking are somewhat undermined by a 140 character limit! :)
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.