Thursday, October 4, 2012

Presidential Debate Logic (Conspiracies, Part II)

   I've been thinking some more about the conspiracy theory stuff. A perfect time to do it, too, I might add. The conspiracy stuff goes quite well combining with the debates last night, including but not limited to the debates surrounding the debates. You can see some of the circular logic conspiracy-theory-style reasoning in discussions of it. You've got such disdain for this politician. Founded on faith instead of reason? That's really what this kind of logic boils down to. Your opponent is such a skunk-faced (?) weasel (??). He lies all the time. See how he avoids the question, by using rhetoric instead? But there's no using logic against you once you've gone down that road. Once you've fallen into that conspiracy-theory mindset, there's no saying to you, if he lies so easily, why would he avoid the question at all, if he could just outright lie about it?

   So, yes, I suppose conspiracy theory stuff is a good use of your time, since such an extreme case of faulty logic allows you to see where faulty logic lies and how it works, thus allowing you to catch it elsewhere.

No comments:

Post a Comment