David Icke and Critical Thinking - Page 18

exford · 22-10-2010, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metapsychonaut

What is your definition of "critical thinking"? After all, by accepting the dictionary's definition or Wikipedia, could you be said to be thinking critically? Semantics aside, I rather like the definition given at the outset, but disagree that David Icke doesn't think critically. No one has access to "all of the relevant" information upon which to make a decision or discernment or even most of what one could say is honest information. After all, in a time of universal deceit, none but the wise can navigate their way to truth through the darkness of ignorance that passes for reality but is not.

He isn't, obviously, in the strictest sense an intellectual in the way that you would want him to be. However, for a man of mainstream beginnings (soccer player, spokesman for the Green Party, etc.) to saying that many leaders are reptilian alien hybrids controlled by 4th dimensional entities is quite a leap from the status-quo. Wouldn't you say?

This, no doubt, could be construed as yet another example of how he fails to think critically, or conversely he could be the most critical of all. How? First, one is only able to be critical or accepting of that of which one is aware and/or has experienced firsthand. Since much of what Icke talks about is second-hand experience, this is where the bulk of the critical thinking should take place. Since, the hallmark of knowledge of first-hand experience (questioned obviously due to the limitations of our senses), you have to have discernment when it comes to other people's stories.

Most of what you know or think you know comes from second hand sources, do they not? For instance, how do you know Neptune exists? Have you ever been there? See it first hand? If you're an astronomer perhaps you have but in all likelihood you've taken their word for it, right? Now, imagine that many people were telling you stories of people shape-shifting before their eyes. Would you believe it? How many would it take before you took it seriously? How much credibility do you give to strangers with outlandish stories that they're emphatic about?

Think of it this way. If, for instance, eye witness testimony can make the difference between whether or not somebody goes to prison or not...clearly we take witness testimony seriously when it comes to crime. Why not for UFOs? For ghosts? For conspiracies and cover-ups? For alien abduction stories? Too outlandish...so it needs proof. In the case of flying saucers, for instance where the government is still in denial, there are hundreds of thousands of declassified documents, millions of eye witnesses, millions of photographs and videos, multiple high-level government whistle-blowers testifying before the National Press Club, removed implants, radar confirmations, thousands of books, etc., etc.

But according to some paid stooges, unless it lands in their own backyard or that of the White House, they'll never believe it. How's that for uncritical thinking? -S

Yes...you make some good points there. Critical thought, that I am talking about is a result of an educated mind,not a means to an end on it's own. By an educated mind I dont mean what society deems an educated mind, PHDs etc. Rather a mind that has learned how to learn,knows how to discern fact(reality)from fiction(unreality).

Yes in a way DI does promote a kind of critical thinking amongst his supporters?,as far as questioning the Authority/media/govt etc. goes. I agree this is a positive outcome,but this I feel, barely scratches the surface.
By applying the level of thought atainable,through a trivium education,one needs not look to UFOs,conspiracies etc to find fallacious,logic,rhetoric and evidence, instead the afore mentioned can be found in what has been accepted(taught) as fact for millenia!! in the realms of Science,Mathematics,history,politics etc.

So my point being with this thread is that much of what DI and many others around are saying is backed up in their Books/presentations by Science that by definition, is not science. Instead being nothing more than religious belief.
You might be thinking many of these theories are mathematicaly sound and are observable to anyone, but as I said, fallacies are to be found in the field of mathematics. It too,takes the form of a religion,when you apply logic to the language(grammar) of mathematics, you find many contradictions and fallacious reasoning.
Which in turn, results in many..... accepting unreality as reality.

This is in direct contradiction to what these guys are supposed to be promoting, people are getting distracted in their quest to understand reality.
Not only by DI etc., but by the status quo,in which we exist.
To understand the Trivium is to understand how you interact with REALITY.

The Trivium is a way to exist in material and spritual ABUNDANCE!!

exford · 05-11-2010, 12:23 AM

Excellent interview on the Corbett report.....From David Icke to??? Well what are YOU doing NOW!!!

Making Independent Films - Paul Verge on The Corbett Report (1/3) - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotat..._zA&feature=iv

Making Independent Films - Paul Verge on The Corbett Report (3/3) - YouTube

lizzyking · 05-11-2010, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, or educated guess in colloquial English, is a kind of reasoning that draws generalized conclusions from a finite collection of specific observations. The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

.

exford · 10-11-2010, 01:09 AM

George Carlin - It's a big club and you ain't in it - YouTube

no_world_order · 13-10-2011, 09:45 PM

sry, I don´t have the time and pleasure now to read through all 11 pages of this thread, so sry if already mentioned.

I think Icke said something about this in an interview I watched on youtube once. I think it was like "people come to me and ask me what to do. but people have to think for themselves and do the right things now!", but I am not sure now where or when he said it.

but I also think as some people before, that it is not that important to tell people over and over again to think for themselves. Some do it anyways, and others don´t do it, even when advised so.

but of course he could address this as an opener to one of his books, that would be quite good.

nirvana · 13-10-2011, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shed7628

After been a very big supporter of DI my critical thinking is telling me that when he says
“It is over for the reptilians”
is either
1. Talking absolute BS
2. Saying a truth ( therefore don't worry folks it is a done deal whatever you choose to do)
Although he denies it, to me he is starting to sound like he thinks he is a messiah type figure.
If the future is set as he is now claiming then, what is the fuking point?

My critical thinking says the future is not set, so he has to be wrong on this.

David icke is very good when it comes to the banks etc .But when he talks about reptilians he is comming from his own ideas etc .
The same with the moon being a spaceship thingy. I received his news letter telling me people are out to attack his book and ideas etc.

And telling us to stay strong blah blah blah .

If he comes out with the spaceship monn thingy then we need to question it.

When david wrote his last book ,i made a few comments on the forum that the moon may not be a spaceship and was attacked from all corners saying icke has all the answers and what am i doing on this forum if i attack his ideas .

For some people the whole icke philosophy has become a prison for the mind and turning into some kind of cult.

shakey1 · 14-10-2011, 03:14 AM

I'm not an 'Icke expert', and I don't accept as truth everything he posits as 'reality', but I know he's stated that he doesn't want his audience to accept his opinions and beliefs (based on his research) as dogma, but rather to think for ourselves, given our own, individual experiences and perspectives...

harrybrown · 14-10-2011, 03:44 AM

David encourages free thinking,
he passes on what he has learned,
shares his ideas with us, as well as ideas he has shared from others
He is open to other peoples thoughts & opinions...

here we are all forming our own opinions, "being critics"

So IMHO David Icke does encourage critical thinking, by freedom of thought & the right to agree or disagree. He also encourages the right to be wrong

One thing I have seen & Im sure there are many who will agree & disagree?
There's a few folk in these forums who seem to go on an ego trip rather than just accept that someone else has a differing opinion to them.

Happy Days

exford · 14-10-2011, 08:17 AM

You've perhaps heard the saying; opinions are like ass holes, everybody has one!!

Well here's a follow on to that saying,based on fact and nothing to do with the ego; Most of them stink!!

exford · 22-02-2012, 08:04 AM

http://moderndeism.com/html/applying_logic.html

How To Understand and Apply Reason and Logic

Reason and Logic are misunderstood in our world today. We here these and associated terms thrown out there all the time but they are used incorrectly in too many cases. This section should help in learning more about Logic, Reason, Debate, Fallacies, Science and the Scientific Method.

__________________________________________________ ______

Applying Reason and Logic: Understanding Reason

Reason is defined as “the ability to use intuitive and logical thought processes to develop rational inferences and arguments based on degrees of evidence (empirical and circumstantial).” Thus, Reason is an ability to use our innate thought processes. However, we must realize that the process of Reason is about finding balance within the context of the rational.

The balance is between two so-called opposing forces that are logic and intuition. Many try and push the notion that the two are mutually exclusive but this is not the case. Studies have shown that both are invaluable for our ability to navigate existence and the world around us. Both have their place and both should be used but a balance between the two is required.

Balance simply means that we use both our intuitive processes and our logical processes to develop an inference. An inference is defined as “the act of passing from data to generalizations usually with calculated degrees of certainty.” An inference or argument is developed from our ability to use our thought processes that in turn help to explain the world around us. We look at the evidence available and then develop these inferences.

Evidence can be either empirical or circumstantial. Empirical evidence is capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment while Circumstantial evidence is in need of more information but gives a general direction for which observation and experiment can go. Both are valid and useful at looking at the world but one must realize the difference. Circumstantial evidence guides us but is not proof so that it is open to interpretation.

Reason allows us to better understand our world, interact with our world and live in our world. It is a tool that has stood the test of time in this regard. However, it is one of many tools that we can employ and we must admit that it is not perfect but the best we have in this endeavor.

____________________________

Applying Reason and Logic: Understanding Logic

Logic is defined as “the science and process of reasoning.” Essentially, logic allows us to analyze an argument (or a piece of reasoning) and work out whether it is likely to be correct or not. There are two types of reasoning skills that are important for using and applying proper logic. They are:

♦Deductive Reasoning: The process of starting with a general statement and arriving at a specific conclusion. A valid example would be, “All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.” An invalid example would be, “Every criminal opposes the government. Everyone in the opposition party opposes the government. Therefore everyone in the opposition party is a criminal.”

♦Inductive Reasoning: The process of starting with a specific statement and arriving at a general conclusion. This does not stand on the same footing as deductive because the conclusion may change as new information is gained. An example would be, “All of the planets we have observed in the universe revolve around a star; therefore, to discover more planets we should begin by locating other stars.”

____________________________

Applying Reason and Logic: Facts vs. Opinion

We all have our opinions and we are entitled to them both naturally and legally within the United States as well as many other westernized societies. Opinions will always play a role in the process of discussion and debate so one should expect them to be interjected at various times. However, many times an opinion will be given as fact and this is improper. Opinions are not facts and should not be portrayed as such.

An Opinion is a belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated with positive knowledge or proof. An example is the belief that the universe and all the planets were created over a period of six days and have existed for only six-thousand years. There are two primary problems with this opinion being stated as fact with the first being that there is no evidence to support this belief and the second being that all available evidence proves this belief as incorrect. As such, it is an opinion rather than a fact.

A Fact is something that is known with certainty, has been verified objectively or has real and demonstrable existence. An example is the proven belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The evidence for this fact is overwhelming and supports this view. As such, it is more than just mere opinion, it is also fact.

The proper approach within the debate would be for the person (or group) to state that “this is my opinion.” Unfortunately, many opinions are given as fact and this produces a problem within the debate as there is not proper evidence to support it. This can lead to a general breakdown in the discussion and can lead to a more problematic approach in which false logic is employed.

____________________________

Applying Reason and Logic: Understanding Logical Fallacies

The logical fallacy is the most popular and improper tool that is used in out times. A logical fallacy is an erroneous argument that can be based on a false starting statement (premise), a false supporting statement, or a faulty logic method that can result in a false conclusion. Essentially, they are defective arguments that are put forward as valid arguments. Logical fallacies can be highly effective if one is not familiar with them.

The best examples of logical fallacies come from our politicians. While politics should be an endeavor of logic it is usually full of fallacious thought. Anytime that you have heard a politician attack another rather than the argument, then you have witnessed a logical fallacy. Unfortunately, it happens far too often and they can be rewarded for it.

Below is a list of logical fallacies with examples that will help in understanding these fallacies. With a little practice, we all can learn to identify fallacies when they occur as well as avoid them so that we are not a part of the problem.

There are numerous fallacies that exist and many are rare at best. The following is a list of those that are most common. It is important to note that the following have been culled from numerous sources and are made up of a large cross section of political, religious and social thought.

The most Common Fallacies are:

♦Ad Hominem: This is Latin for “attack the man” and is an irrelevant attack on the person or group being debated rather than addressing his/her/its argument. Examples are “John Smith’s argument for the existence of Israel is irrelevant because he is bald and fat” and “embryonic stem cell research destroys human life and anyone that supports it is like a Nazi because they liked to destroy life too.”

♦Appeal to Authority: This is an improper yielding to an opinion by someone or something that is in a position of power or an expert who is out of his/her area of expertise. An example is “the Bible says that the Earth was created in 6 days; therefore, it is correct despite the contrary evidence” and “we should abolish the death penalty because many respected people, such as actress Ima Awesome, have publicly stated their opposition to it.”

♦Appeal to Ignorance: This is the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true and vice versa. Essentially, it is the idea that absence of evidence is not absence of evidence. Examples are “there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs must exist” and “people have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists but no one has yet been able to prove it; therefore, God does not exist.”

♦Special Pleading: This is an attempt to rescue a proposition that is in deep logical and/or rhetorical trouble. Examples are “it may be hard for you to believe that God is merciful and at the same time can condemn non-believers to eternal punishment because you do not understand the Biblical doctrines of original sin and free will” and “my client may have broken the law by stealing a television, but he is poor and it is excusable.”

♦Observational Selection: This is when only favorable circumstances are given. The philosopher Francis Bacon described it as counting the hits and forgetting the misses. An example is “a state boasts of the Presidents it has produced (but is silent on its serial killers)” and “a boxer boasts of how many fights that he has won (but does not mention the loses).”

♦Post hoc (also called the questionable cause): This is Latin for “it happened after, so it was caused by” and it is questionable cause when there is not sufficient evidence to support it. Examples are “I know of a 40-year-old who looks 60 because she takes contraceptives” and “the President lowered taxes and then the rate of violent crime went up; therefore, he is responsible for the rise in crime.”

♦Excluded Middle (also called the either/or fallacy): This is when only the two extremes are considered in a continuum of intermediate possibilities. Examples are “Either you love your country or you hate it” and “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

♦Slippery Slope (related to excluded middle but not as subtle): This is when it is suggested that that if one undesirable action is allowed to occur, then it will inevitably lead to another similar but less desirable action without sufficient evidence. Examples are “animal experimentation reduces our respect for life which means that we become more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder leading to the end of civilization” and “if compulsory prayer is removed from the public school system then all religious expressions in all aspects of life will someday be outlawed.”

♦Straw Man: This is when one sets up an unrelated and easily refuted objection to an argument or the opponents position is misinterpreted to make it easier to attack. Examples are “scientists believe in the process of Evolution because they deny the existence of God and as such believe that all living things simply fell together by pure chance” and “conservatives want to change welfare benefits because they care more about big business and money than they do for poor people.”

Many times the individual using this method is unaware that they are doing so. Also, one will notice that some are similar in nature. The post hoc is a “cause and effect” in which the event has already occurred and the slippery slope is a “cause and effect” in which the event has not occurred but it is suggested that it will.

heartbeatsalute · 22-02-2012, 11:04 PM

Well, there will always be people who give to the forum, and people who simply differ, it is better to unite like a needle ,than to cut and separate with a scissor.

exford · 22-02-2012, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heartbeatsalute

Well, there will always be people who give to the forum, and people who simply differ, it is better to unite like a needle ,than to cut like a scissor.

?????

heartbeatsalute · 23-02-2012, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harrybrown

David encourages free thinking,
he passes on what he has learned,
shares his ideas with us, as well as ideas he has shared from others
He is open to other peoples thoughts & opinions...

here we are all forming our own opinions, "being critics"

So IMHO David Icke does encourage critical thinking, by freedom of thought & the right to agree or disagree. He also encourages the right to be wrong

One thing I have seen & Im sure there are many who will agree & disagree?
There's a few folk in these forums who seem to go on an ego trip rather than just accept that someone else has a differing opinion to them.

Happy Days

I meant to answer this post, just forgot to put the quote.

Originally Posted by heartbeatsalute View Post
Well, there will always be people who give to the forum, and people who simply differ, it is better to unite like a needle ,than to cut like a scissor.

exford · 23-02-2012, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heartbeatsalute

I meant to answer this post, just forgot to put the quote.

Originally Posted by heartbeatsalute View Post
Well, there will always be people who give to the forum, and people who simply differ, it is better to unite like a needle ,than to cut like a scissor.

Ah cool

heartbeatsalute · 06-03-2012, 05:15 AM

Quote:

you've perhaps heard the saying; opinions are like ass holes, everybody has one!!

lol

exford · 07-09-2012, 03:51 PM

Critical thinking appears to be gaining poularity.....Yehhhh

14-10-2011, 03:44 AM	#348
harrybrown Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 183	David Icke and Critical Thinking David encourages free thinking, he passes on what he has learned, shares his ideas with us, as well as ideas he has shared from others He is open to other peoples thoughts & opinions... here we are all forming our own opinions, "being critics" So IMHO David Icke does encourage critical thinking, by freedom of thought & the right to agree or disagree. He also encourages the right to be wrong One thing I have seen & Im sure there are many who will agree & disagree? There's a few folk in these forums who seem to go on an ego trip rather than just accept that someone else has a differing opinion to them. Happy Days __________________ A man who stands for nothing....WILL fall for anything! # Malcom X There is a power behind the Crown, Greater than the crown its self... This Entity will be exorcised by sheer weight of numbers

22-02-2012, 11:04 PM	#351
heartbeatsalute Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 10,252	Well, there will always be people who give to the forum, and people who simply differ, it is better to unite like a needle ,than to cut and separate with a scissor. __________________ The belief that society exists has sabotaged every effort to change mankind. It is the reason why revolutions have failed. It is about a totally different revolution: the revolution in the heart of the individual. Last edited by heartbeatsalute; 22-02-2012 at 11:31 PM.

13-10-2011, 09:45 PM	#345
no_world_order Inactive Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 165	sry, I don´t have the time and pleasure now to read through all 11 pages of this thread, so sry if already mentioned. I think Icke said something about this in an interview I watched on youtube once. I think it was like "people come to me and ask me what to do. but people have to think for themselves and do the right things now!", but I am not sure now where or when he said it. but I also think as some people before, that it is not that important to tell people over and over again to think for themselves. Some do it anyways, and others don´t do it, even when advised so. but of course he could address this as an opener to one of his books, that would be quite good.

14-10-2011, 03:14 AM	#347
shakey1 Banned Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 458	I'm not an 'Icke expert', and I don't accept as truth everything he posits as 'reality', but I know he's stated that he doesn't want his audience to accept his opinions and beliefs (based on his research) as dogma, but rather to think for ourselves, given our own, individual experiences and perspectives...

14-10-2011, 08:17 AM	#349
exford Banned Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 1,883	You've perhaps heard the saying; opinions are like ass holes, everybody has one!! Well here's a follow on to that saying,based on fact and nothing to do with the ego; Most of them stink!!

22-02-2012, 08:04 AM	#350
exford Banned Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 1,883	http://moderndeism.com/html/applying_logic.html How To Understand and Apply Reason and Logic Reason and Logic are misunderstood in our world today. We here these and associated terms thrown out there all the time but they are used incorrectly in too many cases. This section should help in learning more about Logic, Reason, Debate, Fallacies, Science and the Scientific Method. __________________________________________________ ______ Applying Reason and Logic: Understanding Reason Reason is defined as “the ability to use intuitive and logical thought processes to develop rational inferences and arguments based on degrees of evidence (empirical and circumstantial).” Thus, Reason is an ability to use our innate thought processes. However, we must realize that the process of Reason is about finding balance within the context of the rational. The balance is between two so-called opposing forces that are logic and intuition. Many try and push the notion that the two are mutually exclusive but this is not the case. Studies have shown that both are invaluable for our ability to navigate existence and the world around us. Both have their place and both should be used but a balance between the two is required. Balance simply means that we use both our intuitive processes and our logical processes to develop an inference. An inference is defined as “the act of passing from data to generalizations usually with calculated degrees of certainty.” An inference or argument is developed from our ability to use our thought processes that in turn help to explain the world around us. We look at the evidence available and then develop these inferences. Evidence can be either empirical or circumstantial. Empirical evidence is capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment while Circumstantial evidence is in need of more information but gives a general direction for which observation and experiment can go. Both are valid and useful at looking at the world but one must realize the difference. Circumstantial evidence guides us but is not proof so that it is open to interpretation. Reason allows us to better understand our world, interact with our world and live in our world. It is a tool that has stood the test of time in this regard. However, it is one of many tools that we can employ and we must admit that it is not perfect but the best we have in this endeavor. ____________________________ Applying Reason and Logic: Understanding Logic Logic is defined as “the science and process of reasoning.” Essentially, logic allows us to analyze an argument (or a piece of reasoning) and work out whether it is likely to be correct or not. There are two types of reasoning skills that are important for using and applying proper logic. They are: ♦Deductive Reasoning: The process of starting with a general statement and arriving at a specific conclusion. A valid example would be, “All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.” An invalid example would be, “Every criminal opposes the government. Everyone in the opposition party opposes the government. Therefore everyone in the opposition party is a criminal.” ♦Inductive Reasoning: The process of starting with a specific statement and arriving at a general conclusion. This does not stand on the same footing as deductive because the conclusion may change as new information is gained. An example would be, “All of the planets we have observed in the universe revolve around a star; therefore, to discover more planets we should begin by locating other stars.” ____________________________ Applying Reason and Logic: Facts vs. Opinion We all have our opinions and we are entitled to them both naturally and legally within the United States as well as many other westernized societies. Opinions will always play a role in the process of discussion and debate so one should expect them to be interjected at various times. However, many times an opinion will be given as fact and this is improper. Opinions are not facts and should not be portrayed as such. An Opinion is a belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated with positive knowledge or proof. An example is the belief that the universe and all the planets were created over a period of six days and have existed for only six-thousand years. There are two primary problems with this opinion being stated as fact with the first being that there is no evidence to support this belief and the second being that all available evidence proves this belief as incorrect. As such, it is an opinion rather than a fact. A Fact is something that is known with certainty, has been verified objectively or has real and demonstrable existence. An example is the proven belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The evidence for this fact is overwhelming and supports this view. As such, it is more than just mere opinion, it is also fact. The proper approach within the debate would be for the person (or group) to state that “this is my opinion.” Unfortunately, many opinions are given as fact and this produces a problem within the debate as there is not proper evidence to support it. This can lead to a general breakdown in the discussion and can lead to a more problematic approach in which false logic is employed. ____________________________ Applying Reason and Logic: Understanding Logical Fallacies The logical fallacy is the most popular and improper tool that is used in out times. A logical fallacy is an erroneous argument that can be based on a false starting statement (premise), a false supporting statement, or a faulty logic method that can result in a false conclusion. Essentially, they are defective arguments that are put forward as valid arguments. Logical fallacies can be highly effective if one is not familiar with them. The best examples of logical fallacies come from our politicians. While politics should be an endeavor of logic it is usually full of fallacious thought. Anytime that you have heard a politician attack another rather than the argument, then you have witnessed a logical fallacy. Unfortunately, it happens far too often and they can be rewarded for it. Below is a list of logical fallacies with examples that will help in understanding these fallacies. With a little practice, we all can learn to identify fallacies when they occur as well as avoid them so that we are not a part of the problem. There are numerous fallacies that exist and many are rare at best. The following is a list of those that are most common. It is important to note that the following have been culled from numerous sources and are made up of a large cross section of political, religious and social thought. The most Common Fallacies are: ♦Ad Hominem: This is Latin for “attack the man” and is an irrelevant attack on the person or group being debated rather than addressing his/her/its argument. Examples are “John Smith’s argument for the existence of Israel is irrelevant because he is bald and fat” and “embryonic stem cell research destroys human life and anyone that supports it is like a Nazi because they liked to destroy life too.” ♦Appeal to Authority: This is an improper yielding to an opinion by someone or something that is in a position of power or an expert who is out of his/her area of expertise. An example is “the Bible says that the Earth was created in 6 days; therefore, it is correct despite the contrary evidence” and “we should abolish the death penalty because many respected people, such as actress Ima Awesome, have publicly stated their opposition to it.” ♦Appeal to Ignorance: This is the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true and vice versa. Essentially, it is the idea that absence of evidence is not absence of evidence. Examples are “there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs must exist” and “people have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists but no one has yet been able to prove it; therefore, God does not exist.” ♦Special Pleading: This is an attempt to rescue a proposition that is in deep logical and/or rhetorical trouble. Examples are “it may be hard for you to believe that God is merciful and at the same time can condemn non-believers to eternal punishment because you do not understand the Biblical doctrines of original sin and free will” and “my client may have broken the law by stealing a television, but he is poor and it is excusable.” ♦Observational Selection: This is when only favorable circumstances are given. The philosopher Francis Bacon described it as counting the hits and forgetting the misses. An example is “a state boasts of the Presidents it has produced (but is silent on its serial killers)” and “a boxer boasts of how many fights that he has won (but does not mention the loses).” ♦Post hoc (also called the questionable cause): This is Latin for “it happened after, so it was caused by” and it is questionable cause when there is not sufficient evidence to support it. Examples are “I know of a 40-year-old who looks 60 because she takes contraceptives” and “the President lowered taxes and then the rate of violent crime went up; therefore, he is responsible for the rise in crime.” ♦Excluded Middle (also called the either/or fallacy): This is when only the two extremes are considered in a continuum of intermediate possibilities. Examples are “Either you love your country or you hate it” and “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” ♦Slippery Slope (related to excluded middle but not as subtle): This is when it is suggested that that if one undesirable action is allowed to occur, then it will inevitably lead to another similar but less desirable action without sufficient evidence. Examples are “animal experimentation reduces our respect for life which means that we become more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder leading to the end of civilization” and “if compulsory prayer is removed from the public school system then all religious expressions in all aspects of life will someday be outlawed.” ♦Straw Man: This is when one sets up an unrelated and easily refuted objection to an argument or the opponents position is misinterpreted to make it easier to attack. Examples are “scientists believe in the process of Evolution because they deny the existence of God and as such believe that all living things simply fell together by pure chance” and “conservatives want to change welfare benefits because they care more about big business and money than they do for poor people.” Many times the individual using this method is unaware that they are doing so. Also, one will notice that some are similar in nature. The post hoc is a “cause and effect” in which the event has already occurred and the slippery slope is a “cause and effect” in which the event has not occurred but it is suggested that it will.

07-09-2012, 03:51 PM	#356
exford Banned Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 1,883	Critical thinking appears to be gaining poularity.....Yehhhh