Philosophy Now Forum

Marianne Talbot tells us how to use the ultimate in transferrable skills.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/106/Critical_Reasoning

Complete waste of time, total navel gazing and talkative thread for very very basic communication.

It doesn't take such things like "if the message was unclear, it's the fault of the giver, but if the message was clear, it's the fault of the receiver".

As usual, it's a low standard article.

HexHammer wrote:Complete waste of time, total navel gazing and talkative thread for very very basic communication.

Not communication, reasoning.

It doesn't take such things like "if the message was unclear, it's the fault of the giver, but if the message was clear, it's the fault of the receiver".

Tell me how you would decide which was the case?

A better method of communication is to assume that, 'The meaning of one's words are the response they get' and 'Feedback not failure'.

As usual, it's a low standard article.

Actually it's a very high standard as it teaches the basics of reasoning in a very short space.

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Complete waste of time, total navel gazing and talkative thread for very very basic communication.

Not communication, reasoning.

It doesn't take such things like "if the message was unclear, it's the fault of the giver, but if the message was clear, it's the fault of the receiver".

Tell me how you would decide which was the case?

A better method of communication is to assume that, 'The meaning of one's words are the response they get' and 'Feedback not failure'.

As usual, it's a low standard article.

Actually it's a very high standard as it teaches the basics of reasoning in a very short space.

One needs to communicate in the first place to reason.

My aunt is a lector at a academy, she's a straight A+ student, and still say utterly stupid things, but she says utterly stupid things "correctly" and well accordingly to this article. She's like a "rain man", the same goes for her son and daughter, they're also academics, with high grades, I'm on the other hand is clueless in school and got bad grades, yet I say and do far more intelligent things than then, and can solve problems that they can't.

This is just useless aesthetic.

Did you see my question? Try answering that please, as the rest is just self-aggrandising waffle.

Arising_uk wrote:Did you see my question? Try answering that please, as the rest is just self-aggrandising waffle.

FIiNInioweruj haosdfh_Æ!!!!

In the headline it's "Critical Reasoning", one part of reasoning is communication, not just constructing well reasoned lines in ones mind. Therefore reasoning is two fold.

For the most part people likes to speak in ambiguous terms, as direct speak can lead to many crisis's, like omg ur so fat! Therefore a direct approach is can be very bad for both parts.
But in environments where you have to give orders that has great importance, like in business world, politics or in military ..etc, then it's best in the long run to be clear, to talk directly where orders are unmistakenly, that is 1 of the most basic things Sun Tzu describes in communication and in this thread can be seen as path to critical reasoning.

What you really think about is few instances where a direct order can be ambigious like General Lee at Ghettysburg said "attack when ready", "when ready" is very relative when he should have said "attack now", in those few cases a 3rd part might be required to solve the case, like judges.

Unfortunately some are not very bright and doesn't understand the difference between direct and indirect speech. We have had some under school teachers saying "maybe come to this parent meeting", they just couldn't comprehend that "maybe" left an option of choosing not to ..................not so very bright people!

No, I must disagree, the value in itself is low as it is too isolated, it's like a cook only learning to stir the pot, not how to do all the other basic things that a cook has to learn in order to be a cook.

My cousin scored very high as an anthropologist, yet she is utterly stupid and doesn't comprehend a fucking thing about basic anthropology.
She thinks ALL children are obnoxious and wants to have borders defined (dunno the correct term in English), which means she doesn't know the psychology concept of "prevalence" (how occurring a behavior is in society)

So yes, it might be 99% good, but the tiny last part is very essential for it to be complete.

HexHammer wrote:FIiNInioweruj haosdfh_Æ!!!!

Sorry, can't find a transition for this so no idea what you've said.

In the headline it's "Critical Reasoning", one part of reasoning is communication, not just constructing well reasoned lines in ones mind. Therefore reasoning is two fold.

See the bit 'Critical'?

You still haven't answered my question?

It doesn't take such things like "if the message was unclear, it's the fault of the giver, but if the message was clear, it's the fault of the receiver".

Tell me how you would decide which was the case?

If I was unclear then what I meant was how do you resolve the issue when the giver thinks the message was clear and thinks it the fault of the receiver but the receiver disagrees.

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:FIiNInioweruj haosdfh_Æ!!!!

Sorry, can't find a transition for this so no idea what you've said.

In the headline it's "Critical Reasoning", one part of reasoning is communication, not just constructing well reasoned lines in ones mind. Therefore reasoning is two fold.

See the bit 'Critical'?

You still haven't answered my question?

It doesn't take such things like "if the message was unclear, it's the fault of the giver, but if the message was clear, it's the fault of the receiver".

Tell me how you would decide which was the case?

If I was unclear then what I meant was how do you resolve the issue when the giver thinks the message was clear and thinks it the fault of the receiver but the receiver disagrees.

There are no translation, it's rubbish.

I'm afraid I dunno what to answer.

Why should I tell you anything, that's not my duty. Go ask a milk maid for answer to metallurgy.

HexHammer wrote:Why should I tell you anything, that's not my duty. Go ask a milk maid for answer to metallurgy.

Given you're the maid who said this "if the message was unclear, it's the fault of the giver, but if the message was clear, it's the fault of the receiver". I'd have thought you'd be the one to answer my question "Tell me how you would decide which was the case?". But if you are saying that it was just a meaningless statement with no point or relevance then fair enough, I'll just think you another nonsense babbler.

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Why should I tell you anything, that's not my duty. Go ask a milk maid for answer to metallurgy.

Given you're the maid who said this "if the message was unclear, it's the fault of the giver, but if the message was clear, it's the fault of the receiver". I'd have thought you'd be the one to answer my question "Tell me how you would decide which was the case?". But if you are saying that it was just a meaningless statement with no point or relevance then fair enough, I'll just think you another nonsense babbler.

FFS ..ur not thingking in human terms but in math/computer terms.

Just because I can parrot a line doesn't mean I know the answer how to resolve all the problems involved, do I know the solution to "The Dinner Party"?!?! ..just because I know of that problem!!?!? ..ur maing silly assumptions.

I think this is a good article but it lead me to the following question: are all absolute truths simply tautologies?
From Marianne's article we learn that only deductive arguments are valid since induction, the argument such as “the sun will rise tomorrow because it always does" has only a probability of being true. So our only hope for truth lies in deductive argument.
Now Kant identifies two forms of propositions, synthetic or analytic. An example of an analytic proposition is "all bachelors are unmarried" and an example of an inductive proposition is "all bachelors are unhappy” Now if we apply deductive reasoning to the synthetic proposition "all bachelors are unhappy” we get “John is a bachelor, John is unhappy” which is valid but may be true or false. Its only when we apply deductive arguments to the analytic proposition "all bachelors are unmarried" to produce “John is a bachelor, John is unmarried" do we get a result that is undoubtedly true but it says nothing!

orin wrote:I think this is a good article but it lead me to the following question: are all absolute truths simply tautologies?
From Marianne's article we learn that only deductive arguments are valid since induction, the argument such as “the sun will rise tomorrow because it always does" has only a probability of being true. So our only hope for truth lies in deductive argument.
Now Kant identifies two forms of propositions, synthetic or analytic. An example of an analytic proposition is "all bachelors are unmarried" and an example of an inductive proposition is "all bachelors are unhappy” Now if we apply deductive reasoning to the synthetic proposition "all bachelors are unhappy” we get “John is a bachelor, John is unhappy” which is valid but may be true or false. Its only when we apply deductive arguments to the analytic proposition "all bachelors are unmarried" to produce “John is a bachelor, John is unmarried" do we get a result that is undoubtedly true but it says nothing!

My god!

The solve this Oh great wise one!

For centuries welders has claimed that the weld is stronger than the metal.
Q: Where is the truth in that?

HexHammer wrote: My god!

The solve this Oh great wise one!

For centuries welders has claimed that the weld is stronger than the metal.
Q: Where is the truth in that?

Well if it was true, it would mean that if the metal shattered into a million pieces, the ball of meld would still remain.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

HexHammer wrote: My god!

The solve this Oh great wise one!

For centuries welders has claimed that the weld is stronger than the metal.
Q: Where is the truth in that?

Well if it was true, it would mean that if the metal shattered into a million pieces, the ball of meld would still remain.

I like milk and cookies!

orin wrote:I think this is a good article but it lead me to the following question: are all absolute truths simply tautologies?

I think, yes.

From Marianne's article we learn that only deductive arguments are valid since induction, the argument such as “the sun will rise tomorrow because it always does" has only a probability of being true. So our only hope for truth lies in deductive argument.

Or that the axioms are inductive but further conclusions can be deduced.

Now Kant identifies two forms of propositions, synthetic or analytic. An example of an analytic proposition is "all bachelors are unmarried" and an example of an inductive proposition is "all bachelors are unhappy” Now if we apply deductive reasoning to the synthetic proposition "all bachelors are unhappy” we get “John is a bachelor, John is unhappy” which is valid but may be true or false.

Another use of deduction is to deduce contradictions in an argument thereby showing it to be false or at least untrue with the axioms the way they are.

Its only when we apply deductive arguments to the analytic proposition "all bachelors are unmarried" to produce “John is a bachelor, John is unmarried" do we get a result that is undoubtedly true but it says nothing!

As Wittgenstein said.