Well no, thank you for actually engaging and providing a detailed response that takes time. I do agree with some of the things you say (like the nothingburger to an extent and the titles) but I really don't think he engages in so many fallacies as you say, generally I like his content, in particular his interviews. My main problem lately it's that it's become the Russia Pakman Show. Of course, we are not gonna solve our disagreement today. Have a good one!
PS: I hadn't heard the "Appeal to The Stone" before.
By the way. It is the next day. I still see no actual comments or interaction in the comment section from David. From what I look this is what seems to be primarily the norm. This is another reason I am harsh on him. He does these fire and forget posts that paint himself as an authority and then seems to ignore and dialog on the subjects he brings up. What is worse, he'll ask steemit a question, and then mostly ignore any responses.
I like his interviews too. ;) Those are less opinion centric. He certainly has a right to his opinion.
I only heard about "Appeal to Stone" myself 6 months or so ago. That's the thing about critical thinking, you can't really master it, you can just get better at it. So it is something I really try to learn something new about a little at a time. There are tons of different logical fallacies. I think I know the most common ones, but there are some obscure ones I haven't internalized yet. Knowing them is just as important for policing ourselves as it is being able to see past the fallacies used by other people. I make mistakes. Hopefully I learn from them.
He did inspire me. I pointed no fingers at him. Yet this sums up my big problem with a lot of the things David says.
Does your disagreement with something make that thing "fake"?
Also I am up voting your comment. Thank you for speaking up and voicing your opinion.
Well no, thank you for actually engaging and providing a detailed response that takes time. I do agree with some of the things you say (like the nothingburger to an extent and the titles) but I really don't think he engages in so many fallacies as you say, generally I like his content, in particular his interviews. My main problem lately it's that it's become the Russia Pakman Show. Of course, we are not gonna solve our disagreement today. Have a good one!
PS: I hadn't heard the "Appeal to The Stone" before.
By the way. It is the next day. I still see no actual comments or interaction in the comment section from David. From what I look this is what seems to be primarily the norm. This is another reason I am harsh on him. He does these fire and forget posts that paint himself as an authority and then seems to ignore and dialog on the subjects he brings up. What is worse, he'll ask steemit a question, and then mostly ignore any responses.
I like his interviews too. ;) Those are less opinion centric. He certainly has a right to his opinion.
I only heard about "Appeal to Stone" myself 6 months or so ago. That's the thing about critical thinking, you can't really master it, you can just get better at it. So it is something I really try to learn something new about a little at a time. There are tons of different logical fallacies. I think I know the most common ones, but there are some obscure ones I haven't internalized yet. Knowing them is just as important for policing ourselves as it is being able to see past the fallacies used by other people. I make mistakes. Hopefully I learn from them.