I'd have to dissagree, based on evidence. Even if this gets me more thumbs down.
The evidence is: In his description of conspiricies in part 1, he never even once mentiones the word evidence. He doesnt submit evidence. He doesnt prove that what he considers to be a conspiricy theory IS infact either a theory or even a real conspiricy involving a 'group' and 'secrets'. Can you see that? He never even challanges evidence nore finds any in the whole 15min.
A word which he does mention, is philosiphy. Which, has no place in an evidenced based argument.
Without evidence to verify any of his own argument, he decends into fallacies; gerneralisations, using the words 'all conspiricy theorists', and strawmans, miss representing the point.
He fails hard. Please tell me you can see this by the evidence...
The evidence is: In his description of conspiricies in part 1, he never even once mentiones the word evidence.
The map is not the territory.
He doesnt prove that what he considers to be a conspiricy theory IS infact either a theory
!
Without evidence to verify any of his own argument, he decends into fallacies
You didn't cite any. You didn't provide any reason to believe your claim.
miss representing the point.
The video's creator's name should be capitalized. Also, she prefers to be addressed as Miss Shirley Representing the Point.
~~~~~~~
Please re...
Iksorod and I made a Google doc of intro-level training materials for rationality / critical thinking. We'll keep adding to it as we find more stuff. Please comment with your own additions.