North Star
Member
- Reaction score
- 41
- Points
- 330
Sorry Brad, but I respectfully disagree, to a degree, on your point
Creating an argument not only involves finding evidence supporting your viewpoint, but self-testing it against contrary evidence that may/will disprove it. I've found very few philosophy grads actually do this in their arguments, and know history/poli sci grads are even worse. When you point out the use of a heuristic such as stereotyping or a fallacy, they look like deer in headlights. Sure, I'm working on anecdotal evidence here, but that's all I really have to go on.
I do concede that grad students and profs are pretty good, but the BAs they produce are pretty lousy. They should concentrate less on education of theories and more on training in argumentation.
Creating an argument not only involves finding evidence supporting your viewpoint, but self-testing it against contrary evidence that may/will disprove it. I've found very few philosophy grads actually do this in their arguments, and know history/poli sci grads are even worse. When you point out the use of a heuristic such as stereotyping or a fallacy, they look like deer in headlights. Sure, I'm working on anecdotal evidence here, but that's all I really have to go on.
I do concede that grad students and profs are pretty good, but the BAs they produce are pretty lousy. They should concentrate less on education of theories and more on training in argumentation.