It means that you are using your intelligence to examine your thinking and that of others to see if it really makes sense. "Viable arguments" are ones that make sense, that are connected in a logical and practical way, and are not just an appeal to the emotions. E.g. "These poor children are starving, therefore give money to me." (The logical and practical response is that since the children are the ones that are starving, the money should go to them, not the internet huckster. This should lead you to find out how best to get money to the children.)
Constructing viable arguments involves developing logical, well-supported claims based on evidence and reasoning. Critiquing the reasoning of others involves analyzing the validity of their arguments, identifying potential flaws or fallacies, and providing constructive feedback on how they can strengthen their reasoning. Overall, both skills are essential for engaging in productive and intellectually rigorous discussions.
Zeno's reasoning, particularly his paradoxes involving motion and infinite divisibility, are widely debated among philosophers. Some argue that his reasoning raises important questions about the nature of space, time, and infinity, while others believe that his paradoxes can be resolved through mathematical and philosophical arguments. Ultimately, whether Zeno's reasoning is "correct" depends on one's interpretation of his arguments and the solutions proposed by later thinkers.
Every argument should have a claim or thesis, evidence to support the claim, and reasoning that connects the evidence to the claim. Arguments are structured to persuade others of a particular viewpoint or position.
An illogical argument is one that does not follow a rational flow of reasoning, often containing flawed logic or reasoning. This can involve using invalid assumptions, making unsupported claims, or presenting unrelated information as evidence. Illogical arguments can be misleading or deceptive in their attempt to persuade others.
Recognizing logical fallacies is important because it helps us identify flawed reasoning and argumentative tactics that can mislead or deceive us. By understanding fallacies, we can critically evaluate arguments, make better decisions, and engage in more effective and honest communication.
This is referred to as making a logical appeal or using logical reasoning to convince someone of your point of view. It involves presenting a clear and coherent argument based on facts, evidence, and sound reasoning to persuade others to agree with your position.
Recognizing logical fallacies is important because it helps us identify flawed reasoning and argumentative tactics that can mislead or deceive us. By understanding fallacies, we can critically evaluate arguments, make better decisions, and engage in more effective and honest communication.
how misleading reasoning is used to influence others
Arguing is part of the human condition. Some individuals seem to get into many arguments while others seem to avoid them.
This is one of the ways by which scientific knowledge advances.
Effective arguments are those that are done calmly and rationally. If someone yells or tries to force opinions, then others are likely to ignore them.
Determining your point of view toward a topic helps you make decisions by providing clarity on where you stand, guiding your reasoning and arguments, and allowing you to evaluate different perspectives effectively. It helps you stay focused, make informed choices, and communicate your position clearly to others.
A good example of personal construct theory is when individuals use their own subjective mental frameworks to categorize and make sense of the world around them. These constructs influence how a person perceives and interprets different situations and experiences. For instance, a person who views themselves as adventurous may interpret traveling to a new country as exciting and enriching, while someone who sees themselves as cautious may view the same experience as risky and stressful.
Ethical
Some of the arguments in favour of shutting the factory are questionable and others downright spurious.
'I waited patiently for Janet to turn up'.
Jews fundamentally disagreed (and continue to disagree) with the incendiary arguments that Hitler used to demean and dehumanize them. Many were angry and many more were fearful. Others thought that nothing would come of Hitler since Germany had previously been one of the most Jew-tolerant countries; unfortunately, these Jews were very wrong.
It depends on the person. Some have decided that no amount of proof or arguments from those opposing their views will change their mind, while others are at least open to arguing and seeing if they might be wrong in what they think.