Deductive and Inductive Arguments
A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be (deductively) valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true. This point can be expressed also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. An argument in which the premises do succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion is called a (deductively) valid argument.
Neurodiversity
Neologism used to refer to neurological differences in a non-pathological manner The subsequent neurodiversity paradigm has been controversial among autism advocates, with opponents saying that its conceptualization of the autism spectrum doesn't reflect the realities of individuals who have high support needs.[4][5][6] History[edit] In a New York Times piece written by American journalist and writer Harvey Blume on June 30, 1997, Blume described the foundation of neurodiversity using the term "neurological pluralism".[7] Blume was an early advocate who predicted the role the Internet would play in fostering the international neurodiversity movement.[8] The term "neurodiversity" has since been applied to other conditions and has taken on a more general meaning; for example, the Developmental Adult Neurodiversity Association (DANDA) in the UK encompasses developmental coordination disorder, ADHD, Asperger's syndrome, and related conditions.[16] Within disability rights movements[edit]
Reasoning Resources
While people generally think of an argument as a fight, perhaps involving the hurling of small appliances, this is not the case-at least as the term is used in philosophy. In philosophy, an argument is a set of claims, one of which is supposed to be supported by the others. There are two types of claims in an argument.
Everything Doesn't Happen For A Reason — Tim Lawrence
I emerge from this conversation dumbfounded. I've seen this a million times before, but it still gets me every time. I’m listening to a man tell a story. A woman he knows was in a devastating car accident; her life shattered in an instant. She now lives in a state of near-permanent pain; a paraplegic; many of her hopes stolen. He tells of how she had been a mess before the accident, but that the tragedy had engendered positive changes in her life.
What If Consciousness Comes First?
Source: ColiN00B/Pixabay Despite the success of neuroscience in establishing a wide range of correlations between brain processes and conscious experience, there is at least one question about the relationship between the brain and consciousness that continues to appear unanswerable, even in principle. This is the question of why we have conscious experience at all. article continues after advertisement
The Ideological Turing Test: How to Be Less Wrong – The Polymath Project
Here’s something that took me half a decade to figure out: It is really, really, really hard to be right. If you want to be right all the time, go be an accountant. The rest of us — paleontologists, internet dating specialists, serial entrepreneurs (read: homeless millenials), policymakers, and scholars of Japanese religions — will just have to get used to being wrong.
Edwin H. Land
Don't do anything that someone else can do. Don't undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly impossible. Edwin Herbert Land (May 7, 1909 – March 1, 1991) was an American scientist and inventor. Among other things, he invented inexpensive filters for polarizing light, a practical system of in-camera instant photography, and his retinex theory of color vision.
The Selective Laziness Of Human Reasoning : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture
Gary Waters/Getty Images/Ikon Images Democrat: "Those arguments by Republicans are preposterous!" Republican: "Those arguments by Democrats are absurd!"
