Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert  ...
I'm not sure what to do about this yet, but I think some weeding is in order. But this leads to another problem. Who decides which pieces fit and which pieces are too warped to fit. Fortunately, there are some objective guidelines we can use that are reference in the Forum Rules page. The reference is to a page that describes a number of argument fallacies. This is an excellent reference that we can use to, not only identify flaws in other's arguments, but to bring more discipline and a better presentation to our own.
--Robert |
Getting back on topic, Robert, the precision of knowing fallacies of logic can be critical. However, there are quite a number of them, and they tend to be intimidating to many.
Perhaps a simpler process might be establishing a "criterion of truth" which could be used as a "touchstone" to test any postulated idea. The criterion known as "pragmatism" lies underneath the scientific method, but stronger still is the "coherence theory of truth" or my favorite, "negative pragmatism".
Quote:
|
"What works may or may not be true, but what fails cannot be true because the truth always works." - William Earnest Hocking.
|
With negative pragmatism, forum participants need only find a flaw to bring question about any idea. If controversy persists, then referring to the Forum Rules and the argument fallacies page would be the next stop.
Thoughts?