Bad reasoning

[bebotalk]

Shouldn't we just societally shun bad logic and reasoning?

For instance. people who say "Why is there no white history month if there is a black history month?" make me both laugh and cringe concurrently. 

Why are people like Terrance Howard and his "theories debunking mathematics and physics" allowed platforms?

Either people who say this are racists and are just too subtle or cowardly to express their views. Or they have the poor reasoning or cognitive functioning to realise why black or LBGT pride months exist. it's not merely about being proud of one's race or sexual orientation. They're about celebrating groups in spite of past and sometimes current discrimination. the first gay pride parades were about being open about being LGBT, and in spite of a far more homophobic society at the time. 

Similarly, black history month is about focusing on the achievements of black people in the USA and beyond. No majority group, in the sociological sense as in controlling the means of a society, needs recognition vis a vis oppression by definition. I'd have to ask why people don't get the point of said months. Either they're highly ignorant or just closeted bigots, who formulate strawmen arguments like "Why is there no white history month?!" as a tool or dog-whistle.

As for Howard, well yes, any scientific theory should be challenged. But then it's about good faith and logical challenges. Take epigenetics, this new take on genetic expression comes from an analysis of how genes operate which has been proven and reproduced over time. 

 

[aurum]

9 hours ago, bebotalk said:

Shouldn't we just societally shun bad logic and reasoning?

Why are people like Terrance Howard and his "theories debunking mathematics and physics" allowed platforms?

Often we do shun such people. That's a big part of why shame, ridicule and cancel culture exist.

Professor Dave's takedown video of Terrence Howard is a good example of this.

However, it's not that simple.

The reality is that people will always disagree and have different perspectives. How are we to conclusively determine which perspective is the right one? One person says they are right, and someone else says they are right. Now what?

Even in a court of law or in some rigorous scientific context, anything can be disagreed with if someone so chooses. "Bad" logic can never be 100% conclusively proven.

If you just try to silence people that you disagree with, someone will eventually silence you back when they disagree. And you won't like it.

Thus, we allow for some degree of free speech. Some amount of "bad" opinion must be allowed. How much dissenting opinion we extend grace towards usually depends on the severity of the context, e.g free speech during Covid being more highly restricted. But it is a continuous balancing act and people will always disagree on what should and shouldn't be allowed.

[bebotalk]

12 hours ago, aurum said:

Often we do shun such people. That's a big part of why shame, ridicule and cancel culture exist.

Professor Dave's takedown video of Terrence Howard is a good example of this.

However, it's not that simple.

The reality is that people will always disagree and have different perspectives. How are we to conclusively determine which perspective is the right one? One person says they are right, and someone else says they are right. Now what?

Even in a court of law or in some rigorous scientific context, anything can be disagreed with if someone so chooses. "Bad" logic can never be 100% conclusively proven.

If you just try to silence people that you disagree with, someone will eventually silence you back when they disagree. And you won't like it.

Thus, we allow for some degree of free speech. Some amount of "bad" opinion must be allowed. How much dissenting opinion we extend grace towards usually depends on the severity of the context, e.g free speech during Covid being more highly restricted. But it is a continuous balancing act and people will always disagree on what should and shouldn't be allowed.

It's not about silencing people. It's about lessening bad logic and reasoning. 
And yes, bad logic can be discerned. 

Howard's logic overall is bad, hence why he's being called out and he isn't being silenced. People are responding to his points as stated.

Progress operates from reasoned critiques of standing practices. This led to the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, and contemporary LGBT rights. 

So we should encourage more good-faith critiques of things, over half-baked reasoning as Howard is presenting.

It's clear why 1x1=1, since 1 is being multiplied by itself. He has said an elemental part of maths is wrong, despite it applying for millennia, without any real grounding. 

We only move forward or grow with reasoned critiques of stuff. he isn't being silenced.

My point is that bad faith critiques should be curbed and discussing this hasn't even lent to much positive. It's not about silencing people.