Teaching Critical Thinking Crippled By Language?

[H3LL]

In most discussions where one is challenging an opinion and trying to encourage critical thinking one is beset with language issues that immediately antagonise the listener.

For reference some info Here (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html).

For example; to indicate that another's point was Argumentum ad ignorantiam sound pompous and is not immediately familiar to those not in the know.

Explaining the phrase or using its more easily understood terminology, Argument to ignorance, isn't going to earn you any brownie points and most people assume you are calling them ignorant and get annoyed and defensive.

You then get into a hateful spiral of explaining that ignorance is not a bad thing (nobody believes you) and if you're really foolish, explain that wilful ignorance is the only thing to be considered bad.

So far one had managed to be pompous, insulting and very insulting. :o

Looking down the list of logical fallacies (that phrase alone causes umbrage), there are very few that do not contain words or implications that are easily offensive to those unfamiliar with fallacies or the scientific method.

Added to this, in theological discussions, the word atheist has so much negative baggage attached to it most theist listeners would perform cartwheels to disassociate themselves with any implication of a connection. Alternatives such as "non-believer", "lacking belief" fail to work because they are instantly translated into atheist.

A protracted and rather dull explanation of ones initial position before launching into a critique helps a little...but not a lot and it is still dull.

These are just a couple of examples...There are many more. Feel free to discuss which have caused you most problems.

Is there no hope....
Is language going to be forever an impediment to critical discourse?



PS - Please don't focus on the atheist bit...I'm more interested in the fallacies for non-reigious discussions. Thus the strike added.

[remirol]

In most discussions where one is challenging an opinion and trying to encourage critical thinking one is beset with language issues that immediately antagonise the listener.
(snip...)
Looking down the list of logical fallacies (that phrase alone causes umbrage), there are very few that do not contain words or implications that are easily offensive to those unfamiliar with fallacies or the scientific method.
(snip...)
Is there no hope....
Is language going to be forever an impediment to critical discourse?


No, but people's unwillingness to admit their own ignorance about a subject, _and_ disinclination to learn rather than just be entertained, is.

If you walked up to 100 "men on the street" and asked them "Do you consider yourself a critical thinker?", I would wager 90 or more would answer "yes." The actual number who are capable of useful critical thinking and logical discussion will be far, far less than that, if only because most people don't ever _learn_ about this sort of thing explicitly.

So we are faced with a circumstance where we must teach the terminology before even being able to hold a discussion effectively... and this means punching a hole in someone's ego, where they thought they were oh, so clever, and it turns out they were only average.

Not to mention if their ego survives the hit, they then must make the effort to realize how many fallacies are perpetuated in day-to-day discourse, and force themselves out of that mindset; "wow, that's a lot of work, I'll go watch American Idol."