It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Cognitive Bias And Logical Fallacies Forum

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I've been reading a book called the "Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Johnathan Haidt and it's got me thinking.

I'm wondering what people think about the idea of a forum for discussions about topics related to things like cognitive biases and logical fallacies. I see terms thrown about quite a bit here on ATS, but not a lot of discussions about how someone, who is so inclined, can avoid them, their extant/limitations, new research/ideas on them and such.

I wonder if it wouldn't tend to elevate some of the discussions here, might tend to a little more understanding among members, or at least do so for those of us who are so inclined and might not recognize some of these things if they're not brought to our attention.

For example, I've seen "confirmation bias" thrown at other members who don't agree with the throwers view on a subject, but I haven't seen much on how difficult it is to avoid confirmation bias without feedback from others who don't hold the same view, a notion that elevates the value/necessity of people with whom we disagree, which could change the tone taken in some of the debates here, again at least among those so inclined.

It's just a thought.

Billy




posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
It's called the Mud-Pit



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam
There is already a forum called "Deconstructing Disinformation".
Isn't that designed for issues like this?

P.S. They've changed it to "Dissecting".


edit on 1-10-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam

Who needs it anyway. I'm right and you are wrong. Simple as can be. All the rest is just people with education posturing for those of us without. Sorry for the blood. I seem to have punctured a hole in my cheek with my tongue.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: imwilliam
There is already a forum called "Deconstructing Disinformation".
Isn't that designed for issues like this?

P.S. They've changed it to "Dissecting".



Exactly. I have been thinking of starting a thread that provides a primer on critical thinking there... but, frankly it would be a lot of work pro bono.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Hey Underwerks,




It's called the Mud-Pit


That would be someplace a person could go to test their idea/theory for confirmation bias, not so much a place to discuss confirmation bias itself, the theory of it I mean.

Hey Disraeli,



There is already a forum called "Deconstructing Disinformation".


Looking through the threads in that forum, it doesn't look to be what I'm talking about. Maybe I've done a poor job of describing what I'm talking about.

So maybe another example will help.

The "slippery slope" fallacy is another I've seen called out here on ATS. In a case like that, I'm not talking about a forum where people can make a case that so and so is engaging in a slippery slope fallacy, rather I'm talking about someplace where people can discuss the fallacy itself, how it can be correctly/erroneously applied to an arguement, requirements to avoid it in one's own arguments and such.

Does that clarify what I'm talking about a little better?



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001



. . . have been thinking of starting a thread that provides a primer on critical thinking there... but, frankly it would be a lot of work pro bono.


Hey DJ,

Yeah, so maybe the totality of the forum would function as the "school" or as you say primer on critical thinking. The individual posts would be the specific elements of critical thinking. So you wouldn't need to write the definitive primer/text, just contribute something more specific and manageable.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
It's called the Mud-Pit



Yes. Unlike normal debate rules, there is no pre-debate agreement on term definitions ect.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire




Who needs it anyway. I'm right and you are wrong. Simple as can be. All the rest is just people with education posturing for those of us without. Sorry for the blood. I seem to have punctured a hole in my cheek with my tongue.


lol . . . you're right never mind. I withdraw the suggestion.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock



. . . there is no pre-debate agreement on term definitions ect.


Makes it a perfect place for establishing tribal affiliation, if nothing else.

[off topic] In another thread you made a comment about voting blocks and how/why they were established and maintained. I'd never thought about the situation in that way. Very interesting. Thanks. [/off topic]



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam

yea also known as gerrymandering but the effects go wider.

On topic I was surprised when I learned that PHD candidates across fields would debate issues and would sometimes take days to agree on definitions of terms so that the debates could move forward with order. Sometimes here on ATS a wild debate is really a hacking out on the term definition level.......and it never goes anywhere save for back to corners.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock



Sometimes here on ATS a wild debate is really a hacking out on the term definition level.......and it never goes anywhere save for back to corners.


Sure and sometimes people go back and forth attacking each other's logic, when logic isn't the issue. Sometimes It's a matter of them using the same term in different ways, with different definitions.

So in the forum I'm proposing there might be a thread about the importance of making sure there is, if not an agreement to the definition of key terms, at least an understanding about how the other person is using it. Or maybe another post hashing out exactly what a particular fallacy looks like, how it's defined, or how many different ways people use the term in practice.




top topics



 
3

log in

join