The bad, bad apple argument.

Does one bad apple spoil the batch? Yes. The reason is that the over-ripening of the bad apple induces other apples to ripen faster also, same with mould spreading, so when stored together, the whole batch can become ruined.

But not everything is a piece of fruit and treating it as if it is, is an error in reasoning, namely, an inductive fallacy. Where the properties of a sample are applied to the whole population, generalising all within as the same.

This can be a very effective way to destroy an argument by cherry picking errors and saying that all points are invalid because some are invalid. This in itself suffers from throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Imagine your car as a complex argument, while reversing you run into a pole and crack the bumper. Because of this break in the car, you dispose of the entire car. It seems quite wasteful or rather, I will take the keys thanks.

When I write I look at quite complex topics and I write to help myself work through them. I also write from many perspectives, not just the one I currently hold on a topic. I insert humor and sarcasm whether people are able to pick it or not. Rarely though, is any one of my articles entirely wrong no matter how one approaches it.

However, what I do notice is people cherry picking, omitting and being less than charitable with their editing, quoting and general approach. Some also set up straw men, red herrings and appeals to emotion to garner support for their own position. What they do is try to poison the well, why they do this however may be some personal flaw or inferiority complex. I don't know, they would have to self-reflect upon it.

The problem is that this diatribe rarely adds anything useful to an argument, just points out flaws. There is some value in this but, less than the effort some go to and get so impassioned over. The problem is to point out flaws in ideas, one must first have an idea to consider. Without chefs, food critics would be out of a job. Many also seem to be well rehearsed and on occasion I follow the arguers history, I see the same phrases repeated. This may suggest a habitual process which can prove risky as the environment is under constant change.

Many of these people seem to be consumers and critics of ideas rather than creators themselves. There is nothing wrong with this, just an observation. I wonder how they get on in the walking world though and would be interested to know how content they are within themselves as some do come across as quite one dimensional at times.

I think that when it comes to ideas, there must be some practical application of them. Not necessarily directly translated but where some shift can be made within. For me, every time I write and create a piece I shift a little in some direction to either strengthen or weaken some part of my psyche and actions. I am not set in stone.

My writing lets me explore my strengths and more importantly for me, my weaknesses. I am under no illusion of myself, well not much, and do not believe that I am infallible nor always even logical. I also often times read something I write, realise the conflict within an argument and post it anyway. Sometimes, I write from a position that I held in the past, but no longer hold and sometimes I write from a position I may never hold, or want to hold.

The reason I do this is because I do not think that I am overly unique nor do I think that I am the only one that faces internal conflicts so, presenting myself openly has the best chance of helping others realise their conflicts as well as me sorting out my own. This way, we can share our current positions or a range of perspectives and course correct towards a better tomorrow with more accuracy through thoughtful cooperation.

I wonder though, when the people read through my articles looking for points to argue against, what crosses their minds when they come across points that they agree with yet chose to omit. Do they realise the conflict within themselves by attempting to destroy something that they partially agree with? Again, self-reflection is required and I cannot answer for them.

The only thing I can say is that I enjoy writing and thinking across a lot of topics. I like providing a smorgasbord of information and perspectives so anyone who is interested in developing can cherry pick from it to use as a catalyst to strengthen their own positions, even if they do not agree with the entire piece.

For the ever-critical critics, I will continue playing my role and keep creating content so that you always have something to work with. Life is not so serious.

Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]