What about this recommendation from the here be dragons video?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World
I'd recommend linking to the main Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast, as well as their "5x5" podcast (which is currently linked to). Most weeks some common fallacy or cognitive bias is mentioned (usually in connection with alternative medicine).
Because it is intro-level material. The sequences require a strong base to read/understand and a lot of endurance
The sequences require a strong base to read/understand and a lot of endurance
I won't argue with endurance, but what do you mean with "strong base"? Where in the sequences are you expected to already know something that's not part of the sequences? I've read most of it (didn't care to learn about quantum physics) and don't remember such a thing.
I don't know math, quantum mechanics or philosophy, i had to open 10-20 pages of references and google searches to follow what was going on(per individual sequence page).
It reads as though it is assumed that you are a AI graduate.
Its also strongly aimed/influenced by american culture, so some things are weird for us Europeans.
(Is there such a thing as an "AI graduate"?)
You know, while I appreciated the pop culture (and cult-classic culture) references in the Sequences while I was reading them, probably because I got almost all of them, I can definitely see the argument that they reduce accessibility for a wider audience.
I don't know math, quantum mechanics or philosophy
Perhaps I'm used to read on, even if I might miss something. I know a bit of math, and there are a few posts that benefit from that, but only a few. I don't know much philosophy either (except the sequences, of course).
i had to open 10-20 pages of references and google searches to follow what was going on(per individual sequence page).
Let's take Making Beliefs Pay Rent (in (Anticipated Experiences) as an example. What would you have to look up there? And don't say "colonial alienation" ;-). For me it might be phlogiston and elan-vital. But A) understanding those words is hardly essential for understanding the post and B) they are explained somewhere else in the sequences (I never said navigating them were easy).
Its also strongly aimed/influenced by american culture, so some things are weird for us Europeans.
I'm European and I don't really know what you mean.
i have tried the read-on thing on 2 pages and it made it even worse, so i dropped back to the opening pages tactic. That page you mention is actually one of the better ones although using examples like "Wulky Wilkinsen" and post utopianism made no sense to me. Having things explained elsewhere is a big problem imho, but i intend to devote some time to help fix that.
You may have been exposed to enough american culture by tv, movie, shows and books to not get overwhelmed by them?
using examples like "Wulky Wilkinsen" and post utopianism made no sense to me
That's sort of the point. The words "post utopianism" and "colonial alienation" don't mean anything.
You may have been exposed to enough american culture by tv, movie, shows and books to not get overwhelmed by them?
Most movies and even tv-shows that run in Germany are actually American. Books might be more of a problem, but if it's a classic like the Christmas Carole, there is a Simpsons episode about it :)
The Case of The Spelunkean Explorers, previously mentioned here in a post by cousin_it, offers a fascinating array of examples of different legal theories. Some of them are useful to think about in the context of metaethics, while others are more useful in discussing the hidden complexity of wishes.
"Appealing to "proper" debating technique is going to be counter-productive here."
What!? Appealing to logical, turn based, evidence based arguments, is not relevant to this argument?!?
"getting the right answer."
And you think.... that thats going to happen without debating right? Right?
"Debates as commonly practiced train you to write your conclusion before searching for the reasons"
No it doesnt. Being for the proposition of an argument is NOT a conclusion, it is a theory.
You get points here because your actually talking about scientific method (i hope).
"You should read much more of the sequences before calling us wrong so authoritatively."
I'm willing to admit thats possible. But my last post. Is fine the way it is.
You didnt prove anything, and my later researching of "map and territory" or "belief and reality" (which i take to be a theory which is a proposed addition to the list of flaws and fallacies.) didnt lend any greater credibility to your point.
Its use of the term belief immediately characterises my argument as a belief, instead of evidenced based. Beliefs do not require evidence, they require faith. Therefore your fallacy does not apply here. Furthermore, it is very fallacious and risky to use this fallacy "belief and reality" because it can be stated, without the user ever having to prove the veracity of “belief and reality” by; disproving the evidence submitted, proving something is a ‘belief’ and based on faith, providing contrary evidence to prove that ‘reality’ is indeed different from the so called ‘belief’.
This new fallacy, "belief and reality" instead substitutes a group of different fallacies which could be used instead. They are:
appeal to authority (in the case the map/belief is issued by an authority that does not evidence that it is correct)
correlation not causation (where it is confused which is the map/belief and which is the reality)
thin end of the wedge (where the maps representatives is taken to extremes)
restricting the options (where the map omits valuable information about reality)
Of all the fallacies I expect that restricting the options is the one that is the most representative of the bias their trying to convey here.
Your highschool debate club appears to have done you a disservice. Reality is not changed by your ability to spin the opponent's words into the nearest accessible fallacy so that you can prove yourself superior to the enemy in the eyes of a judge. In my observation the more skill someone has in debating (and more importantly the more they focus on it) the more they are able to prove how unnecessary it is to update based on evidence. Whether you are too far gone to recover is yet to be seen but your arguments here remind me more of boxing than of thinking. Which is fine - epistemic rationality is a less useful skill in most situations than rhetoric.
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.