It is difficult for me to ascertain when the person I am communicating is using a logical fallacy to trick me into believing him or doubting my judgement, even when I realise it hours after the argument....
A great way to get good at them is watch Fox News and identify them as they come. You can watch other networks and find them, but for a constant stream, Fox is a goldmine.
Honestly a great way to learn them is to argue with people online in places like Lemmy / Kbin. When people argue against you on something you know to be right, it forces you to either a) reconsider your own stance or b) think about why they’re wrong or why their argument is invalid and how to point that out, either way it often leads to logical fallacies, and the more you intentionally try to identify examples of them, the easier they are to intuitively recognize.
Human behavior isn’t nearly as complicated as time dilation
Human behaviour is far more complicated than time dilation. Time dilation is one weird phenomena that can be described and predicted with a handful of equations, human behaviour is inherently complex to the point of being chaotically unpredictable
The problem with Judge Judy’s quote though is that time dilation doesn’t make sense to most people, that doesn’t mean most people should live lives assuming it’s not true. Conversely if it just means that it has to make sense to someone but not you then it’s meaningless because there’s someone crazy enough to believe everything.
How do I learn to detect logical fallacies in a conversation?
It is difficult for me to ascertain when the person I am communicating is using a logical fallacy to trick me into believing him or doubting my judgement, even when I realise it hours after the argument....