I had a philosophy professor years ago who said that people who make catalogues of logical fallacies don’t really understand logic. The true logician simply examines the argument, notes that it doesn’t follow, and tells you why without using any jargon.
Being on the internet has convinced me this guy was completely correct.
Philosophy has a tendency to need to use very specialized language to avoid problems of ambiguity and to precisely identify concepts that have no reason to come up in the vast, vast majority of conversation among laypeople.
I mean, yes and no. You go to Aristotle, for instance, and while his work is definitely not easy to understand – it being lecture notes and all – it’s surprising how little jargon he uses, with most of it being just common words used in a restricted sense, e.g., “matter” or “relation.”
The point we post explicitly liberal sources is to make liberals think even for just a second. Turns out, it’s still not enough.
It’s an old trolling technique, but this guy apparently didn’t even understand how it’s done.
I had a philosophy professor years ago who said that people who make catalogues of logical fallacies don’t really understand logic. The true logician simply examines the argument, notes that it doesn’t follow, and tells you why without using any jargon.
Being on the internet has convinced me this guy was completely correct.
It’s not only an internet, reading philosphy in general i noticed it’s awfully filled with jargon. And it tend to use it in worst possible manner.
Philosophy has a tendency to need to use very specialized language to avoid problems of ambiguity and to precisely identify concepts that have no reason to come up in the vast, vast majority of conversation among laypeople.
I mean, yes and no. You go to Aristotle, for instance, and while his work is definitely not easy to understand – it being lecture notes and all – it’s surprising how little jargon he uses, with most of it being just common words used in a restricted sense, e.g., “matter” or “relation.”