Your Mileage May Differ
Someone told me the other day that argument isn’t, shall we say, my strong suit – by which I think was meant I’m terrible at it. Oh, I thought, and picked up the classifieds to look for another job. This time I might even try to find one that pays money, however little. That’s what I get for leaving school in the seventh grade. Not that I regret it – those years on the streets were the making of my character.
But so I was amused to see this entry on a philosophy-type blog (a transgendered one at that) that’s full of recommendations of good skeptical, philosophical, scientific and similar sites, and says in a paragraph on logic-oriented sites –
If you lack familiarity with the basics of the subject then The Fallacy Files is a good place to start – it categorises the major logical faults and gives clear illustrative examples. The list sits alongside a blog which subjects news items to argumentative criticism. A similar site, although not a blog, which does the same thing for mathematics, is Numberwatch which has a regular Number of the Month page lambasting innumeracy in the media. My favourite blog, however, in this field is the Notes and Comments of the Butterfliesandwheels site which is dedicated, as they put it, to “fighting fashionable nonsense”. Most (all?) of the entries are written by Ophelia Benson with just the right amount of righteous [indignation] and rigorous logic.
Well, in that case, I’ll put the classifieds back in the zebra’s cage for now.
Aww, but we love you, you knew that…
I’m currently reading “Why Truth Matters” and enjoying it a great deal, finding it a bit like a souped-up Extended Play New Improved Deluxe Edition of Butterfies And Wheels enhanced with Frosted Highlights and Wings. But it’s blended together very well, of course.
Every now and then, though, there is a passage where your own particular VOICE comes through so clearly that I’ve no doubt that you, and not Jeremy, wrote that part.
You have a distinctive style. I’m kind of glad I don’t know what your actual voice sounds like. If I did, I suspect I would be unable to read anything you wrote without hearing you, specifically, pronouncing each word in my head. Sort of like when you read something written by Andy Rooney.
Mwa, dalling, I love you too.
No, I knew there were readers, of course, but it was the bit about rigorous logic that applied a poultice to my shattered confidence.
I love the Extended Play Frosted Highlights thought. I tried to obscure my particular voice and distinctive style most of the time, aiming for a more neutral academicky proper-booky style, but also knew that it popped through sometimes, like a gopher giggling behind the wood pile.
I’m glad you’re back commenting. Although I’m a leftist believing Christian and sometimes read the posts through gritted teeth (and in the case of some of the nutty Christian fundamentalists in the States sheer disbelief- the Revelation of St. John the Divine is supposed to be end of times stuff and only to be interpreted metaphorically. The Gospels are full of God’s love, and forgiveness -eg story of the woman taken in adultery, parable of the prodigal son, parable of the Good Samaritan, turn the other cheek etc.) I do vist your site every day and see what lunacies are abroad.
Best wishes
Thanks Jeffrey. I hope I haven’t done too much damage to your teeth! (I would add though that some of the Gospels are full of God’s love but Jesus can be pretty harsh at times, especially in John…also in Matthew. But I agree that US fundamentalists seem to have a remarkably warped and selective take on the whole thing.)
Received my copy of WTM (finally!) last week and enjoyed it for the sorts of reasons Sastra notes.
My only criticism (I had to have one) is of the ETS section which gets a little confused when it acknowledges that the critics of ETS effects might be right (at least some of the time).
Also, that section contains an error. If you play the “significance testing” game — as the medical journals do — then a non-significant result (where the confidence interval overlaps “no effect”) MUST be interpreted as saying “There is NO evidence for an effect”.
Therefore you can NOT state (as, alas, you do) that there was an effect, although it was not significant. (I’m paraphrasing ’cause the book is at home but I ain’t.)
The rest was great.