Is it fallacious reasoning to say that the space program should be supported for the unknown and unpredictable advances in unrelated technologies that may come from it? If the goal is general technological progress, aren't there better investments? What about education, general research, business incubators or X-prize competitions? The use of fallacious arguments in public discourse could highlight a weakness in the public education system.
Few parts of the curricula would appear directed at more important objectives than teaching logic and reasoning. We might find that support for these other parts are justified by reasoning not dissimilar to the one mentioned above for NASA-they offer some positive effect so must be good instead of first asking how to achieve the positive effect then considering all possible ways to best attain that effect.
Of course I'm not an expert in either issue and am speaking only to the nature of the argument with a slant towards provocation:)
Feel free to correct and improve!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment