Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Sound judgement and reasoning skills
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Stormin Mormon
May 26, 2012, 9:00:59 AM5/26/12
to
From another list.....
===============
http://survivalblog.com/2012/05/sound-judgment-and-reasoning-skills-for-preparedness-by-anthony-c.html
There are numerous "rosy paths" that can cause a person to make a poor
judgment call. Considering each of these in turn will, I hope, increase
your awareness of them in your own decision making, and make you less
susceptible to those who would use them to change your actions against
your better judgment, or to sway your opinion. While reading the
remainder of the article work out how often your judgment is based on
faulty reasoning and clouded by emotion. Additionally, ponder the words
you use, as those words, whether spoken or unspoken have great power.
_
Incorrect Cause:_ Mistaking correlation for causation. An example of
this is" knowing" you missed that big buck standing right in the open
because you forgot to wear those lucky socks. You laugh, however we all
have been guilty of assigning an incorrect cause to an event.
_
I'm Right Since You Can't Prove Me Wrong:_ This person uses your
inability to show that his conclusion is not valid as proof that he is
right. A good example of this is "Why in the world would you store a
year's worth of food! Heck, we don't have hurricanes, the stores around
here always have food, and what are my taxes supporting FEMA for
anyway!" In this situation I suggest sadly shaking your head, turning,
and walking away.
_
Broad Generalization:_ Pretty much all of us fall prey to this one. It
assumes that what is valid some of the time is therefore valid all of
the time. Racial prejudice and bigotry fall into this category of
course. An acquaintance of mine believes that everyone of certain ethnic
backgrounds are lazy. Making assumptions about a person simply because
they vote democrat or republican is another example of a broad
generalization. Not all democrats are against guns. Of course if a
democrat confides that he or she owns a battle rifle I might give them a
second chance!
_
Rushed Generalization_: When you base a conclusion or inference on too
small a sample or even a one-time event, you have made a decision which
is unfounded. Consider your friend at work who is going to get a pit
bull. His decision is completely based on the next door neighbor who has
"the sweetest, cutest pit bull who just loves to play with the kids".
You, of course, would do far more research before deciding what breed
was best for you.
_
Invalid Analogy:_ Here a person assumes that since two events or
circumstances are alike in some known way that they are also alike in
unknown ways. An instance of this would be that because your neighbor is
an excellent wing shot (shooting flying game birds) that he will be an
excellent sniper. Both have a lot to do with firearms of course, but
being a skilled wing shooter does not automatically mean he will have
the talents and skills of a military sniper.
_
Polarizing Argument:_ This tactic is a favorite of special interest
groups. It is used to create drama and emotion. It is an attempt to
force you to pick a side. If you are not with us, then you are against
us. Example: "Huh, well if you are against increased funding and
authority for the Department of Homeland Security that must mean you do
not care about terrorist attacks!"
_
False Dilemma:_ This is similar to using a polarizing argument. It
infers that there are only two outcomes, and both are bad. For instance,
thinking that the only two options available are to either build up a
savings account and have the IRS tax the interest and watch it erode via
inflation, or you can invest in beans and bullets, in which case you
will have no retirement nest egg could be a false dilemma. One of the
dangers of false dilemmas is their "no win" aspect which can cause you
to take no action to improve your preparation situation.
_
Killing the Messenger:_ A favorite through the ages of those who don't
have a valid counter argument based on evidence, also known as an/ad
hominem/. Here the person attempts to invalidate the argument or
information by attacking the source rather than the substance. "Heck,
did you hear what Fred is saying about climate change and needing to
stock up on food because of food shortages? Didn't he get fired last
month?" How about "I don't listen to a word that guy says, he voted for
that city tax hike last year!"
_
Look Who Is Talking:_ Or, two wrongs make a right. So an older, wiser
prepper dad is advising his son against taking out a big loan and buying
that fancy sports car. Dad thinks his son should stay debt-free and buy
a reliable used car with good gas mileage for cash. The son keeps his
thoughts to himself, which are along the lines of why shouldn't he buy
that fancy sports car since that is what dad did when he was his age.
_
Hitting A Moving Target:_ This is when a person uses different meanings
for a key word or term throughout an argument. An example here is "No
one should doubt that God can work miracles, since we have seen
countless miracles like synthetic DNA and heart transplants." The
speaker is using the term "miracle" in different contexts, technological
and spiritual. A miracle of technology is human made, whereas a true
miracle is, well. . . . a miracle.
_
Appeal to Authority:_ This is one I love to hate, as it is used so
often. In this case the credibility of a position is enhanced by the
support of widely known or admired, but not qualified figures. Nuclear
physicists, doctors, astronauts and celebrities are often used in this
capacity. The main stream media is often guilty of relying on "appeal to
authority" instead of truly investigating the matter, and is extremely
poor journalism. Your friend Bob is going to max out his credit cards to
buy Facebook stock because the doctor who operated on him last year said
it was a "no brainer". Yeah, right, maybe Bob should have gotten a
second opinion.
_
Begging the Question:_ A tactic which bases its conclusion on a
statement that is assumed to be true. An example might be "The actions
of Wall Street Investment Bankers must be for the best since the actions
in question are legal". My reply to that is just because an action is
legal does not make it honest or ethical.
_
Don't Rock The Boat:_ This claims that tradition, or the status quo
should not be challenged. Corporate and social cultures are good
examples. "This is the way we do things around here, so don't question
it or you will be viewed as a trouble-maker" or "In our subdivision we
don't think planting a garden is a good idea". All of us who have dared
to walk the path espoused on SurvivalBlog have had to deal with this.
_
Circular Argument:_ Here a person uses the conclusion as the premise for
the argument, or repeats a statement in different terms. My wife and I
have a lot of fun with this one. I'll say "how come you always disagree
with me?" She replies "No I don't". Then I come back with "See what I
mean?" How about the person living in suburbia who insists they are
well prepped since they have they purchased a month of food at Costco
last year and has it stored in the basement? They stick to that month of
food as evidence of being well prepared no matter how hard you try to
point out the vulnerabilities of the overall situation. Did you hear
about the guy who "always wins" the long range shooting competition?
Yeah, he didn't think it was fair that he got eliminated in the first
round since he always wins the competition. Round and round it goes. . . .
_
Mob Rule:_ This is an appeal to the majority opinion, which, after all,
must be valid since "everyone" thinks so. Those of us who value our
liberty need to be aware of how this is used to manufacture consent.
Using safety issues like terrorists, school shootings and other events
to create fear in the minds of the majority in order to further an
undermining of the second amendment are all too real examples. "We need
security cameras, metal detectors and facial recognition software
installed on every street corner to catch anyone who is acting strangely
because they might be a terrorist" would fall into this category.
_
Straw Man:_ The person on the other side of the debate restates your
opinion in an exaggerated form in order to make it sound ridiculous.
This is a bit like putting words in your mouth. Unless you are aware of
this tactic and knowledgeable about your topic, this is a very effective
strategy. It puts you on the defensive and makes your position appear
weak. Suppose you are debating gun control with some poor misguided
soul. You support reducing firearms ownership regulations. In response
to your position your opponent states "Well, if society goes along with
your proposal we will soon have assault rifles in every school locker
and gun fire in the hallways!"
_
Domino Effect:_ This suggests that taking a certain action will be the
first step along the path to a negative consequence or dire outcome.
This type of argument assumes a chain of events will occur once the
"first domino falls". Here I will use an example that will strike a
nerve for most of the SurvivalBlog readership: Allowing firearms
registration will inevitably lead to the confiscation of our firearms.
See what I mean? Instituting a national firearms registry would be
stepping onto a slippery slope, and gun confiscation could be the
outcome, but it is not a certainty.
_
Taking it to Extremes:_ This is similar to the Straw Man tactic. It can
be a sign that your opponent is getting angry, frustrated, or simply
unable to refute your position with logic and evidence. Consider the
couple who cannot agree on prepping. The wife is a serious prepper who
feels that dedicating a significant portion of their monthly budget to
preps is a wise course of action. The husband resists the idea since it
would mean cutting back on golfing most weekends with his buddies.
Finally in frustration he says "well why don't we just take out a second
mortgage and spend the kids college money to buy all that stuff!"
_
Hypothesis as Fact:_ Attempting to put forth a statement about what
might have happened in the past, or may happen in the future, if only
circumstances were different. Like last Saturday when you were in the
garage lovingly taking that 27th AR-15 out of the box when your spouse
walked in. Now normally your spouse could only be described as a
wellspring of love, understanding and support. However, for reasons
unknown, last Saturday was a "new normal" for your spouse. Whether it
was the red face, the vein bulging ominously in her forehead or her
hands clenching and unclenching that gave her emotional state away is
now somewhat hazy. What you do recall is the speed with which you
sought, purely for her benefit, to bring her blood pressure down to a
safe level. "Honey" you said "This here new AR was totally necessary,
you see the Euro is going to implode, like tomorrow, next year for sure,
and then all your family and cousins will be coming here to stay with
us. . . . and that means I'm gonna have to give'em all something to
protect themselves with. You want them to be protected don't you honey?
And you and me are gonna need some guns just for us now aren't we?
_
Red Herring:_ A common diversionary tactic to hide a weakness in an
argument. It is used to confuse the issue and throw you "off the scent".
Say your wife discovers that second bulk ammo order that brings your
store of 5.56 to a nice even 100,000 rounds (I know, I know, when it
comes to ammo to much is never enough). She confronts you with the
credit card statement and "that look" that starts to peel the skin off
your face. You are desperate to gain advantage in the confrontation so
you pull a "red herring" out of the matrimonial tool kit. "You know I
did it for you and the kids honey" you stutter, "...besides nothing I do
ever makes you happy. Heck, last weekend I painted the bedroom just like
you wanted and now you don't even like the color".
_
Self-Contradictory:_ Utilizing a statement that is inconsistent or you
might say "doesn't pass the sniff test". For example, you are making the
rounds at the gun show. At one dealer's table the salesman is pushing
pretty hard to sell you an AK clone with all the bells and whistles. In
a low voice the salesman states that the gun is the best deal at the
show, and besides, you should buy from him because "them other guys will
say anything to get a sale".
As you start to more quickly recognize when you employ these faulty
methods of reasoning, or when they are being used against you the better
your judgment will become. It was eye-opening to me to realize that most
of us spend a majority of our time either using these tactics or being
subjected to them. Very few people indeed are "straight talkers" who
don't resort to the methods outlined in the foregoing.
Now I would like to spend a few moments distinguishing between evidence,
truth and belief by way of a thought experiment. I assume that as you
read this you are sitting in a chair. How many of you believe in the
chair? Well, that is kind of ridiculous since it exists, right? Okay,
now, how many of you believe in gravity? I bet more than a few of you
raised your hands. Those who are undecided and did not raise your hands
are invited to go to an open window with your wife's favorite flower
vase, now extend your arm out the window and release the vase. Gravity
is one of those things that you cannot see directly, but we have plenty
of evidence that it exists. Therefore, like the chair, it isn't a matter
of belief, since no matter how hard you shut your eyes and believe that
gravity doesn't exist, it in fact does. You cannot have a belief in
something that exists. That gravity exists on Earth is a fact, just like
it is a fact that the chair you are sitting on exists. No matter how
hard you think or how strongly you believe to the contrary nothing
changes that fact. You can ignore the evidence of the chair having mass
and taking up space, but that will not save you busting your shins on it
if you attempt to walk through it like it doesn't exist.
Most people confuse their beliefs with truth. Beliefs are concepts and
ideas that are not supported by evidence such as measurements of mass,
volume, temperature etc... We all have beliefs of course, and beliefs
can be very powerful. In fact, most people will continue in their
beliefs despite overwhelming evidence against them. There are
psychological studies that show 80% of people will ignore evidence that
is contrary to their views and beliefs. To do so in times such as the
ones we now face carries a high degree of risk. One possible example of
this are people who cannot conceive of the U.S. Dollar inflating until
it is practically worthless
<http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2011/04/100-year-declining-value-of-us-dollar.html>.
There is plenty of evidence to support the idea, but many people simply
will not consider it.
Working on distinguishing between what is true as shown by evidence, and
what you feel is true based on your opinions and beliefs is a very
powerful step towards developing better judgment. A very wise person
once said to me that "an opinion should be the result of a thorough
consideration of the evidence, not in place of it." It is my hope that
these words resonate with you and support your efforts in securing a
bright future for you and your loved ones.
*JWR Adds:* To properly equip your children (or yourself, if logic was a
subject overlooked in your education), I recommend the short books The
Fallacy Detective: Thirty-Eight Lessons on How to Recognize Bad
Reasoning
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0974531537/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=survivalcom-20&linkCode=
as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0974531537>
and The Thinking Toolbox: Thirty-five Lessons That Will Build Your
Reasoning Skills
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0974531510/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=survivalcom-20&linkCode=
as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0974531510>.
Further,from a Christian perspective, to distinguish between scriptural
truth and the lies of the secular humanist world, I recommend the
lecture series /The Truth Project/
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000UZXVQU/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=survivalcom-20&linkCode=
as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000UZXVQU>,
available on DVD.
===============
http://survivalblog.com/2012/05/sound-judgment-and-reasoning-skills-for-preparedness-by-anthony-c.html
There are numerous "rosy paths" that can cause a person to make a poor
judgment call. Considering each of these in turn will, I hope, increase
your awareness of them in your own decision making, and make you less
susceptible to those who would use them to change your actions against
your better judgment, or to sway your opinion. While reading the
remainder of the article work out how often your judgment is based on
faulty reasoning and clouded by emotion. Additionally, ponder the words
you use, as those words, whether spoken or unspoken have great power.
_
Incorrect Cause:_ Mistaking correlation for causation. An example of
this is" knowing" you missed that big buck standing right in the open
because you forgot to wear those lucky socks. You laugh, however we all
have been guilty of assigning an incorrect cause to an event.
_
I'm Right Since You Can't Prove Me Wrong:_ This person uses your
inability to show that his conclusion is not valid as proof that he is
right. A good example of this is "Why in the world would you store a
year's worth of food! Heck, we don't have hurricanes, the stores around
here always have food, and what are my taxes supporting FEMA for
anyway!" In this situation I suggest sadly shaking your head, turning,
and walking away.
_
Broad Generalization:_ Pretty much all of us fall prey to this one. It
assumes that what is valid some of the time is therefore valid all of
the time. Racial prejudice and bigotry fall into this category of
course. An acquaintance of mine believes that everyone of certain ethnic
backgrounds are lazy. Making assumptions about a person simply because
they vote democrat or republican is another example of a broad
generalization. Not all democrats are against guns. Of course if a
democrat confides that he or she owns a battle rifle I might give them a
second chance!
_
Rushed Generalization_: When you base a conclusion or inference on too
small a sample or even a one-time event, you have made a decision which
is unfounded. Consider your friend at work who is going to get a pit
bull. His decision is completely based on the next door neighbor who has
"the sweetest, cutest pit bull who just loves to play with the kids".
You, of course, would do far more research before deciding what breed
was best for you.
_
Invalid Analogy:_ Here a person assumes that since two events or
circumstances are alike in some known way that they are also alike in
unknown ways. An instance of this would be that because your neighbor is
an excellent wing shot (shooting flying game birds) that he will be an
excellent sniper. Both have a lot to do with firearms of course, but
being a skilled wing shooter does not automatically mean he will have
the talents and skills of a military sniper.
_
Polarizing Argument:_ This tactic is a favorite of special interest
groups. It is used to create drama and emotion. It is an attempt to
force you to pick a side. If you are not with us, then you are against
us. Example: "Huh, well if you are against increased funding and
authority for the Department of Homeland Security that must mean you do
not care about terrorist attacks!"
_
False Dilemma:_ This is similar to using a polarizing argument. It
infers that there are only two outcomes, and both are bad. For instance,
thinking that the only two options available are to either build up a
savings account and have the IRS tax the interest and watch it erode via
inflation, or you can invest in beans and bullets, in which case you
will have no retirement nest egg could be a false dilemma. One of the
dangers of false dilemmas is their "no win" aspect which can cause you
to take no action to improve your preparation situation.
_
Killing the Messenger:_ A favorite through the ages of those who don't
have a valid counter argument based on evidence, also known as an/ad
hominem/. Here the person attempts to invalidate the argument or
information by attacking the source rather than the substance. "Heck,
did you hear what Fred is saying about climate change and needing to
stock up on food because of food shortages? Didn't he get fired last
month?" How about "I don't listen to a word that guy says, he voted for
that city tax hike last year!"
_
Look Who Is Talking:_ Or, two wrongs make a right. So an older, wiser
prepper dad is advising his son against taking out a big loan and buying
that fancy sports car. Dad thinks his son should stay debt-free and buy
a reliable used car with good gas mileage for cash. The son keeps his
thoughts to himself, which are along the lines of why shouldn't he buy
that fancy sports car since that is what dad did when he was his age.
_
Hitting A Moving Target:_ This is when a person uses different meanings
for a key word or term throughout an argument. An example here is "No
one should doubt that God can work miracles, since we have seen
countless miracles like synthetic DNA and heart transplants." The
speaker is using the term "miracle" in different contexts, technological
and spiritual. A miracle of technology is human made, whereas a true
miracle is, well. . . . a miracle.
_
Appeal to Authority:_ This is one I love to hate, as it is used so
often. In this case the credibility of a position is enhanced by the
support of widely known or admired, but not qualified figures. Nuclear
physicists, doctors, astronauts and celebrities are often used in this
capacity. The main stream media is often guilty of relying on "appeal to
authority" instead of truly investigating the matter, and is extremely
poor journalism. Your friend Bob is going to max out his credit cards to
buy Facebook stock because the doctor who operated on him last year said
it was a "no brainer". Yeah, right, maybe Bob should have gotten a
second opinion.
_
Begging the Question:_ A tactic which bases its conclusion on a
statement that is assumed to be true. An example might be "The actions
of Wall Street Investment Bankers must be for the best since the actions
in question are legal". My reply to that is just because an action is
legal does not make it honest or ethical.
_
Don't Rock The Boat:_ This claims that tradition, or the status quo
should not be challenged. Corporate and social cultures are good
examples. "This is the way we do things around here, so don't question
it or you will be viewed as a trouble-maker" or "In our subdivision we
don't think planting a garden is a good idea". All of us who have dared
to walk the path espoused on SurvivalBlog have had to deal with this.
_
Circular Argument:_ Here a person uses the conclusion as the premise for
the argument, or repeats a statement in different terms. My wife and I
have a lot of fun with this one. I'll say "how come you always disagree
with me?" She replies "No I don't". Then I come back with "See what I
mean?" How about the person living in suburbia who insists they are
well prepped since they have they purchased a month of food at Costco
last year and has it stored in the basement? They stick to that month of
food as evidence of being well prepared no matter how hard you try to
point out the vulnerabilities of the overall situation. Did you hear
about the guy who "always wins" the long range shooting competition?
Yeah, he didn't think it was fair that he got eliminated in the first
round since he always wins the competition. Round and round it goes. . . .
_
Mob Rule:_ This is an appeal to the majority opinion, which, after all,
must be valid since "everyone" thinks so. Those of us who value our
liberty need to be aware of how this is used to manufacture consent.
Using safety issues like terrorists, school shootings and other events
to create fear in the minds of the majority in order to further an
undermining of the second amendment are all too real examples. "We need
security cameras, metal detectors and facial recognition software
installed on every street corner to catch anyone who is acting strangely
because they might be a terrorist" would fall into this category.
_
Straw Man:_ The person on the other side of the debate restates your
opinion in an exaggerated form in order to make it sound ridiculous.
This is a bit like putting words in your mouth. Unless you are aware of
this tactic and knowledgeable about your topic, this is a very effective
strategy. It puts you on the defensive and makes your position appear
weak. Suppose you are debating gun control with some poor misguided
soul. You support reducing firearms ownership regulations. In response
to your position your opponent states "Well, if society goes along with
your proposal we will soon have assault rifles in every school locker
and gun fire in the hallways!"
_
Domino Effect:_ This suggests that taking a certain action will be the
first step along the path to a negative consequence or dire outcome.
This type of argument assumes a chain of events will occur once the
"first domino falls". Here I will use an example that will strike a
nerve for most of the SurvivalBlog readership: Allowing firearms
registration will inevitably lead to the confiscation of our firearms.
See what I mean? Instituting a national firearms registry would be
stepping onto a slippery slope, and gun confiscation could be the
outcome, but it is not a certainty.
_
Taking it to Extremes:_ This is similar to the Straw Man tactic. It can
be a sign that your opponent is getting angry, frustrated, or simply
unable to refute your position with logic and evidence. Consider the
couple who cannot agree on prepping. The wife is a serious prepper who
feels that dedicating a significant portion of their monthly budget to
preps is a wise course of action. The husband resists the idea since it
would mean cutting back on golfing most weekends with his buddies.
Finally in frustration he says "well why don't we just take out a second
mortgage and spend the kids college money to buy all that stuff!"
_
Hypothesis as Fact:_ Attempting to put forth a statement about what
might have happened in the past, or may happen in the future, if only
circumstances were different. Like last Saturday when you were in the
garage lovingly taking that 27th AR-15 out of the box when your spouse
walked in. Now normally your spouse could only be described as a
wellspring of love, understanding and support. However, for reasons
unknown, last Saturday was a "new normal" for your spouse. Whether it
was the red face, the vein bulging ominously in her forehead or her
hands clenching and unclenching that gave her emotional state away is
now somewhat hazy. What you do recall is the speed with which you
sought, purely for her benefit, to bring her blood pressure down to a
safe level. "Honey" you said "This here new AR was totally necessary,
you see the Euro is going to implode, like tomorrow, next year for sure,
and then all your family and cousins will be coming here to stay with
us. . . . and that means I'm gonna have to give'em all something to
protect themselves with. You want them to be protected don't you honey?
And you and me are gonna need some guns just for us now aren't we?
_
Red Herring:_ A common diversionary tactic to hide a weakness in an
argument. It is used to confuse the issue and throw you "off the scent".
Say your wife discovers that second bulk ammo order that brings your
store of 5.56 to a nice even 100,000 rounds (I know, I know, when it
comes to ammo to much is never enough). She confronts you with the
credit card statement and "that look" that starts to peel the skin off
your face. You are desperate to gain advantage in the confrontation so
you pull a "red herring" out of the matrimonial tool kit. "You know I
did it for you and the kids honey" you stutter, "...besides nothing I do
ever makes you happy. Heck, last weekend I painted the bedroom just like
you wanted and now you don't even like the color".
_
Self-Contradictory:_ Utilizing a statement that is inconsistent or you
might say "doesn't pass the sniff test". For example, you are making the
rounds at the gun show. At one dealer's table the salesman is pushing
pretty hard to sell you an AK clone with all the bells and whistles. In
a low voice the salesman states that the gun is the best deal at the
show, and besides, you should buy from him because "them other guys will
say anything to get a sale".
As you start to more quickly recognize when you employ these faulty
methods of reasoning, or when they are being used against you the better
your judgment will become. It was eye-opening to me to realize that most
of us spend a majority of our time either using these tactics or being
subjected to them. Very few people indeed are "straight talkers" who
don't resort to the methods outlined in the foregoing.
Now I would like to spend a few moments distinguishing between evidence,
truth and belief by way of a thought experiment. I assume that as you
read this you are sitting in a chair. How many of you believe in the
chair? Well, that is kind of ridiculous since it exists, right? Okay,
now, how many of you believe in gravity? I bet more than a few of you
raised your hands. Those who are undecided and did not raise your hands
are invited to go to an open window with your wife's favorite flower
vase, now extend your arm out the window and release the vase. Gravity
is one of those things that you cannot see directly, but we have plenty
of evidence that it exists. Therefore, like the chair, it isn't a matter
of belief, since no matter how hard you shut your eyes and believe that
gravity doesn't exist, it in fact does. You cannot have a belief in
something that exists. That gravity exists on Earth is a fact, just like
it is a fact that the chair you are sitting on exists. No matter how
hard you think or how strongly you believe to the contrary nothing
changes that fact. You can ignore the evidence of the chair having mass
and taking up space, but that will not save you busting your shins on it
if you attempt to walk through it like it doesn't exist.
Most people confuse their beliefs with truth. Beliefs are concepts and
ideas that are not supported by evidence such as measurements of mass,
volume, temperature etc... We all have beliefs of course, and beliefs
can be very powerful. In fact, most people will continue in their
beliefs despite overwhelming evidence against them. There are
psychological studies that show 80% of people will ignore evidence that
is contrary to their views and beliefs. To do so in times such as the
ones we now face carries a high degree of risk. One possible example of
this are people who cannot conceive of the U.S. Dollar inflating until
it is practically worthless
<http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2011/04/100-year-declining-value-of-us-dollar.html>.
There is plenty of evidence to support the idea, but many people simply
will not consider it.
Working on distinguishing between what is true as shown by evidence, and
what you feel is true based on your opinions and beliefs is a very
powerful step towards developing better judgment. A very wise person
once said to me that "an opinion should be the result of a thorough
consideration of the evidence, not in place of it." It is my hope that
these words resonate with you and support your efforts in securing a
bright future for you and your loved ones.
*JWR Adds:* To properly equip your children (or yourself, if logic was a
subject overlooked in your education), I recommend the short books The
Fallacy Detective: Thirty-Eight Lessons on How to Recognize Bad
Reasoning
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0974531537/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=survivalcom-20&linkCode=
as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0974531537>
and The Thinking Toolbox: Thirty-five Lessons That Will Build Your
Reasoning Skills
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0974531510/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=survivalcom-20&linkCode=
as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0974531510>.
Further,from a Christian perspective, to distinguish between scriptural
truth and the lies of the secular humanist world, I recommend the
lecture series /The Truth Project/
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000UZXVQU/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=survivalcom-20&linkCode=
as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000UZXVQU>,
available on DVD.
El Otro
May 26, 2012, 6:07:41 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 6:00 am, "Stormin Mormon"
> http://survivalblog.com/2012/05/sound-judgment-and-reasoning-skills-f...
> <http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2011/04/100-year-declining-v...>.
to think critically more for themselves.
ur2superficial
> http://survivalblog.com/2012/05/sound-judgment-and-reasoning-skills-f...
> There is plenty of evidence to support the idea, but many people simply
> will not consider it.
>
> Working on distinguishing between what is true as shown by evidence, and
> what you feel is true based on your opinions and beliefs is a very
> powerful step towards developing better judgment. A very wise person
> once said to me that "an opinion should be the result of a thorough
> consideration of the evidence, not in place of it." It is my hope that
> these words resonate with you and support your efforts in securing a
> bright future for you and your loved ones.
>
> *JWR Adds:* To properly equip your children (or yourself, if logic was a
> subject overlooked in your education), I recommend the short books The
> Fallacy Detective: Thirty-Eight Lessons on How to Recognize Bad
> Reasoning
> <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0974531537/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&t...
> will not consider it.
>
> Working on distinguishing between what is true as shown by evidence, and
> what you feel is true based on your opinions and beliefs is a very
> powerful step towards developing better judgment. A very wise person
> once said to me that "an opinion should be the result of a thorough
> consideration of the evidence, not in place of it." It is my hope that
> these words resonate with you and support your efforts in securing a
> bright future for you and your loved ones.
>
> *JWR Adds:* To properly equip your children (or yourself, if logic was a
> subject overlooked in your education), I recommend the short books The
> Fallacy Detective: Thirty-Eight Lessons on How to Recognize Bad
> Reasoning
>
> as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0974531537>
> and The Thinking Toolbox: Thirty-five Lessons That Will Build Your
> Reasoning Skills
> <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0974531510/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&t...
> as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0974531537>
> and The Thinking Toolbox: Thirty-five Lessons That Will Build Your
> Reasoning Skills
>
> as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0974531510>.
> Further,from a Christian perspective, to distinguish between scriptural
> truth and the lies of the secular humanist world, I recommend the
> lecture series /The Truth Project/
> <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000UZXVQU/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&t...
> as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0974531510>.
> Further,from a Christian perspective, to distinguish between scriptural
> truth and the lies of the secular humanist world, I recommend the
> lecture series /The Truth Project/
>
> as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000UZXVQU>,
> available on DVD.
I have run across a number of such arguments often. And all can learn
> as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000UZXVQU>,
> available on DVD.
to think critically more for themselves.
ur2superficial
terryc
May 27, 2012, 12:26:29 AM5/27/12
to
On 27/05/12 08:07, El Otro wrote:
> I have run across a number of such arguments often. And all can learn
> to think critically more for themselves.
<tic> It is in a list, thereto it must be gospel ,/tic>
> I have run across a number of such arguments often. And all can learn
> to think critically more for themselves.
Winston_Smith
May 27, 2012, 4:17:29 PM5/27/12
to
0 new messages