The Art of Rhetoric, Debate, Logical Fallacies, etc

[elengil]

It looks as if all my previous video links have stopped working? (or is it only for me)

So, here's a new one to add to the thread.

[Beorhtnoth]

I have never encountered Markham Nolan before. Does he provide instructions on how to identify disinformation, misinformation and falsehoods broadcast/published by established media organisations? Does he explore why compromised legacy media should be avoided in favour of irreverent, unbeholden new media, and how we should wean ourselves off state propaganda?

To understand how the establishment media manipulates its viewers, who better than Chomsky?

[Frelga]

I don't know if this fits perfectly here, but hopefully it doesn't NOT fit.

I have recently formalized my opinion on discussions of every kind as "the big picture is simple, the details are complicated." A productive discussion should pay a balanced amount of attention to both, but the big picture should never be completely ignored.

Corollary - it's a red flag when someone enters a discussion and focuses entirely on minor details, the semantics, the hypotheticals. In my experience it means at best that that they do not understand the subject well enough to grasp the big picture, and at worst, that they are not participating in good faith.

[Inanna]

Doesn’t the reverse also hold true? I feel
like that about anecdotal, personal examples. they can pack detail, they enable story-telling, but without the big picture you can create a false narrative.

[Frelga]

Doesn’t the reverse also hold true? I feel
like that about anecdotal, personal examples. they can pack detail, they enable story-telling, but without the big picture you can create a false narrative.

That's not a reverse, that's case in point.

[Inanna]

argh. I had meant to write an example for the reverse. I think.

[Beorhtnoth]

Corollary - it's a red flag when someone enters a discussion and focuses entirely on minor details, the semantics, the hypotheticals. In my experience it means at best that that they do not understand the subject well enough to grasp the big picture, and at worst, that they are not participating in good faith.

This cannot be overstated. Focusing on the minutiae to divert from the bigger picture is a fundamental obscurantist tactic.

And the most successful.

[Frelga]

argh. I had meant to write an example for the reverse. I think.

Sure, we can't ignore the complexity of the detail.

For example - the big picture when it comes to discussing Middle-earth is that it is a work of fiction created by one man whose ideas evolved over time, and as such some questions don't have definitive answers or have contradictory answers.

There is a lot of delightful discussion to be had about the details of the fictional world, even from an entirely in-story perspective. But forgetting the big picture entirely just leads to a lot of pointless shouting.

[Beorhtnoth]

For example - the big picture when it comes to discussing Middle-earth is that it is a work of fiction created by one man whose ideas evolved over time, and as such some questions don't have definitive answers or have contradictory answers.

Ah, but that "big picture" isn't necessarily THE "big picture". Tolkien's cosmogenesis borrowed from the Kalevala, Prose Edda etc.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

My friend N.E.B. pointed this link out to me, and I thought it might be worth sharing here.

The Differences Between Dialogue and Debate.