365 Days Of Philosophy

I don’t think I’d agree with the review that talks about the ‘secrets of Donald Trump’s savvy speechmaking’ (it may be because I have an earlier edition that leaves that chapter out) but as a book on oratory skills, Thank You for Arguing: What Cicero, Shakespeare and the Simpsons Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion by Jay Heinrichs is a useful pop-textbook style read. The title itself gives you a clue to the range; while not every discussion is about philosophy (although it covers basic fallacies, structure and delivery of an argument), argument is undeniably an element of philosophy. It’s being able to interrogate and investigate ideas with others, beyond paper exercises. I particularly liked how the book encourages a critical look at persuasive techniques and how to develop and present a speech for the public. While the emphasis is on American culture and the layout of the book itself is a little crowded (and perhaps it’s the footnotes on the side that distract me), the appendix is a really useful add

Here’s some general revision questions: What are the three elements of an argument? What is a fallacy? What is the difference between cum hoc ergo propter hoc and post hoc ergo propter hoc? What is the difference between a serial, a convergent and a linked argument? What is cogency/soundness in reasoning? Write your answer in the comments! Answer will be available tomorrow on patreon.com/kyliesturgess. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here’s some revision exercises on synthetic and analytic statements, covered earlier in the year on 365 Days Of Philosophy. Identify the following as either synthetic or analytic statements: A cat is an animal. Apple pie is made with apples. A cat can have stripes or spots. Apple pies can be found in New Zealand. All squares have sides. Some shoes have stripes or spots. Put your answers in the comments — solutions out tomorrow on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today’s episode is the revision on fallacies from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com. If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here’s all the major fallacies covered this year on the 365DaysOfPhilosophy: weasel words, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, argument from ignorance, shifting the goalposts, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to popularity, ad hominem, tu quoque, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, anecdotal fallacy, red herring, no true Scotsman fallacy, begging the question, hasty generalisation, false dilemma, and reductio ad absurdum. See if you can identify some of them in the examples below: Four out of five chocolate eaters recommend chocolate bars! It must be the best chocolate to buy.  I’ve heard that chocolate bars are some of the best chocolate bars out there.  I’ve seen so many chocolate bars sold, so they must be the best chocolate to buy. I ate the chocolate bars and then I got pimples, so the chocolate must be the cause of pimples. I saw the queen eating these chocolate bars, so they must be the best chocolate bars. Answers tomorrow on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess — put your answers below! See omnystudio.co

Here’s all the major fallacies covered this year on the 365DaysOfPhilosophy: weasel words, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, argument from ignorance, shifting the goalposts, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to popularity, ad hominem, tu quoque, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, anecdotal fallacy, red herring, no true Scotsman fallacy, begging the question, hasty generalisation, false dilemma, and reductio ad absurdum. See if you can identify some of them in the examples below: We don’t really know if environmental warming is due to elephants, but we cannot say that it is not due to elephants. I can therefore suggest that environmental warming is due to elephants. The problem with gun control isn’t the liberties that people can have with the use of guns, it’s the illiberal utilisation of personal freedoms that can lead to existence limitations. You may be worried about the environment but I don’t see people worrying about the limitations that companies have with building. No real environmental policy

Here’s all the major fallacies covered this year on the 365DaysOfPhilosophy: weasel words, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, argument from ignorance, shifting the goalposts, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to popularity, ad hominem, tu quoque, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, anecdotal fallacy, red herring, no true Scotsman fallacy, begging the question, hasty generalisation, false dilemma, and reductio ad absurdum. See if you can identify some of them in the examples below: People in the environment lobby probably just worry about stepping on ants, and let’s face it, that’s what pro-environment arguments are really on about, ant-stepping.  They were talking about ant-stepping the same time they were going to the environmental meeting, so the environmental meetings must be all about ant-stepping.  They were talking about ant-stepping after going to that environmental meeting, so environmental meetings must be about raising awareness of ant-stepping.  You’re worried about the environment, but I don’

Here’s all the major fallacies covered this year on the 365DaysOfPhilosophy: weasel words, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, argument from ignorance, shifting the goalposts, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to popularity, ad hominem, tu quoque, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, anecdotal fallacy, red herring, no true Scotsman fallacy, begging the question, hasty generalisation, false dilemma, and reductio ad absurdum. See if you can identify some of them in the examples below: Sure, you may be concerned about a rise in sea levels which you think is a sign of global warming, but where’s your donation to the children’s fundraiser?  You first claim there’s evidence of global warming, and then you’ll start claiming there’s evidence of more environmental destruction and then everyone will panic and start making children scared, is that what we want?  Anyone who really cares about the environment wouldn’t be spreading stories about how there’s environmental destruction happening, it’s just not caring about

I haven’t written much about graphic novels and their contribution to learning about philosophy, but released this year was Heretics! The Wondrous (and Dangerous) Beginnings of Modern Philosophy. It’s focused on “contentious and controversial philosophers”, which could mean a great many. However, it’s looking at the likes of Galileo and Descartes, Locke and Newton, who have certainly made an impact in terms of not only philosophy but the way we see the world.  It’s got a great overview of the history of philosophers, the period in which they lived in and the influence that they had (and the influences on each other). It helps to put into perspective why great thinkers can be a challenge intellectually as well as socially. It’s by a father and son team (Steven and Ben Nadler), and while some of the content is a little cartoonish at times, it’s a colourful and engaging style. I’d recommend this as a young teen introduction and certainly as an inspiration for introducing people to philosophy. See omnystudio.co

Today’s episode is the revision on argument structues from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com. If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For the following argument, use a diagram to represent the argument you construct. Research has indicated that eating flour causes fatty deposits in the gut and flour is made of carbohydrates. Therefore, I propose that eating cake contributes to fatty deposits in the gut, because cakes contain flour. Write your answer in the comments! Answers will be available tomorrow on patreon.com/kyliesturgess.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For the following argument, use a diagram to represent the argument you construct. Only people with a dog license can own a dog and only people who live in a house rather than an apartment have the space for a dog. Therefore, only people in houses with dog licenses can legally own a dog. Write your answer in the comments! Answers will be available tomorrow on patreon.com/kyliesturgess. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For the following argument, use a diagram to represent the argument you construct. The bottle smashed in the kitchen. Two party-goers saw the cat on the fence during the time of the party. The glass was covered in dog fur. The cat did not smash the bottle. Write your answer in the comments! Answers will be available tomorrow on patreon.com/kyliesturgess. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

  For the following argument, use a diagram to represent the argument you construct. A photograph is an artistic expression. Some phones can do photographs. Therefore, some phones can allow for artistic expression. Write your answer in the comments! Answers will be available tomorrow on patreon.com/kyliesturgess.     See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For the following argument, use a diagram to represent the argument you construct. We should vote for Basil Brush at the next parent and teachers meeting. He was very good with organising the last fete, and has extensive experience as a mediator for meetings. Write your answer in the comments! Answer will be available tomorrow on patreon.com/kyliesturgess. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For the following argument — what are the inference indicators? Use a diagram to represent the argument you construct. There is a game that costs nineteen dollars. Albert and Andy have ten dollars each. If they combine this amount, they’ll have twenty dollars. Therefore, if they combine their money, they can afford the game. Write your answer in the comments! Answer will be available tomorrow on patreon.com/kyliesturgess. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Analyse the following debate and identify how well the debate unfolds — are there any fallacies involved, and what are they? BORIS: It’s silly to think of dying as the end of ourselves; we have memories, we have mementos, we have long-lasting influence on the environment. To call death an end is just scaring people and it’s irresponsible. DORIS: But you cannot deny that we have a fear of death, it’s the ‘great unknown’ as it’s called. What about all the things you’d miss if you died today and you knew you were getting married tomorrow? No person who was truly living their life would ever consider the end of life being something so easily dismissed. BORIS: Honestly, I think you’re being very narrow-minded — we have an eternal soul, we have the potential for passing on our genes and we already know what happens to our bodies. We can even donate our body parts to help other people! You’re just the kind of irresponsible fear-creator that we should ignore. DORIS: Putting aside the insults, what evidence do you

Today’s episode is the revision on reviews from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com. If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is a book for current and future philosophy students and people like them: that is, for people who are intelligent and curious about all sorts of things. And who like to read something provocative, or odd, or funny. And who like to stay up too late with people like them chatting and discussing and disagreeing about a huge and random set of topics, armed with that most important philosophical tool: beer. Robert Martin’s For the Sake of Argument is not a particularly long book but it’s got an enthusiastic and forthright approach to understanding and building philosophical debates. From the first it establishes that it’s a handbook, aimed at educating those who want to learn the basics of philosophical arguing, in an informal, entertaining and opinionated way. It covers the basics of identifying poor reasoning, how to build and support a case and basic fallacies and how to avoid them. I’d recommend this for high school students who are interested in studying the subject and anyone who might be worried that

Don’t be Fooled: A Philosophy of Common Sense is a new book by Jan Bransen, and I originally picked it up as a text that seemed to be about logic. It’s a little more than that; it’s an analysis of how we’re easily fooled and the importance of language and our preconceptions can hinder or help us. Being better aware of how easily it is to be fooled is an important element in developing common sense. With short discussions and scenarios, it unpacks how we interpret meaning and the implications for relationships. While it’s less about philosophy and more about the power of rhetoric, I’d recommend this as a readable approach to understanding political and social mores and the power of language and how it can contribute to misunderstandings and manipulation. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.