I can't count the number of times I've seen "logical argumentation" mooted as the sole or key criterion of intellectual value in debates on here. It's an easy habit to fall into; it pits thought against authority. But good arguments can, and often do, rest on faulty assumptions.
-
-
Show this thread
-
It's no accident that attempts to logic one's way to "history" without actually knowing any history invariably fail. It's not history's fault that they do. It's that there is no path from "logical argumentation" to factual knowledge if you didn't start with any factual knowledge.
Show this thread -
And starting with a plausible-ish fact or two, generally speaking, doesn't yield much better results. (See yesterday's thread.) This is why "expertise" is more than a matter of credentialing or gatekeeping. Some subjects require considerable knowledge before logic is of any use.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also that they think “logic” is just a linear progression of jumps from idea to idea often using assumed premises to do so.
-
Indeed. Logic isn't logic just because someone says it is.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
+1, also that a little logic is enough, and that there is no need to think things through too far.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Are you telling me Aristotle wasn't able to parse the rules of the universe flawlessly with only logic?
-
This is grossly unfair to Aristotle, but yes
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The hell? Who are these academics who thunk they're experts on everything? That literally describes the IDW lol
End of 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.