background preloader

Rational Thinking

Facebook Twitter

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Cancel Edit Delete Preview revert Text of the note (may include Wiki markup) Could not save your note (edit conflict or other problem).

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please copy the text in the edit box below and insert it manually by editing this page. Upon submitting the note will be published multi-licensed under the terms of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license and of the GFDL, versions 1.2, 1.3, or any later version. See our terms of use for more details. Add a note Draw a rectangle onto the image above (press the left mouse button, then drag and release). Save To modify annotations, your browser needs to have the XMLHttpRequest object. [[MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js|Adding image note]]$1 [[MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js|Changing image note]]$1 [[MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js|Removing image note]]$1. How to Disagree. March 2008 The web is turning writing into a conversation.

How to Disagree

Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts. Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. DH0. This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. U r a fag!!!!!!!!!! But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight.

Logic. Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike)[1] is the branch of philosophy concerned with the use and study of valid reasoning.[2][3] The study of logic also features prominently in mathematics and computer science.


Logic is often divided into three parts: inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning. List of fallacies. Formal fallacy. In philosophy, a formal fallacy (also called logical fallacy) is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic.[1] An argument that is formally fallacious is always considered wrong.

Formal fallacy

A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which may have a valid logical form and yet be unsound because one or more premises are false. The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument, but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. "Fallacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments. Argumentation theory provides a different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies. If P then QPTherefore Q Notes. Informal logic. Informal logic is associated with (informal) fallacies, critical thinking, the Thinking Skills Movement[6] and the interdisciplinary inquiry known as argumentation theory.

Informal logic

Frans H. van Eemeren writes that the label "informal logic" covers a "collection of normative approaches to the study of reasoning in ordinary language that remain closer to the practice of argumentation than formal logic. "[7] History[edit] The field perhaps became recognized under its current name with the First International Symposium on Informal Logic held in 1978.

David Hitchcock argues that the naming of the field was unfortunate, and that philosophy of argument would have been more appropriate. Alongside the symposia, since 1983 the journal Informal Logic has been the publication of record of the field, with Blair and Johnson as initial editors, with the editorial board now including two other colleagues from the University of Windsor—Christopher Tindale and Hans V.

Bias. Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view.


People may be biased toward or against an individual, a race, a religion, a social class, a political party, or a species.[1] Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.[2] Cognitive bias. Some cognitive biases are presumably adaptive.

Cognitive bias

Cognitive biases may lead to more effective actions in a given context.[7] Furthermore, cognitive biases enable faster decisions when timeliness is more valuable than accuracy, as illustrated in heuristics.[8] Other cognitive biases are a "by-product" of human processing limitations,[9] resulting from a lack of appropriate mental mechanisms (bounded rationality), or simply from a limited capacity for information processing.[10][11] List of cognitive biases.

Illustration by John Manoogian III (jm3).[1] Cognitive biases can be organized into four categories: biases that arise from too much information, not enough meaning, the need to act quickly, and the limits of memory. Cognitive biases are tendencies to think in certain ways that can lead to systematic deviations from a standard of rationality or good judgment, and are often studied in psychology and behavioral economics. There are also controversies over some of these biases as to whether they count as useless or irrational, or whether they result in useful attitudes or behavior. For example, when getting to know others, people tend to ask leading questions which seem biased towards confirming their assumptions about the person.