Various groundings in truth, logic, deduction, inference, scientific method, and mathematical proof, are useful.
I'd start with the distinction between didactic and rhetorical speech, for starters, a distinction and conflict which goes back to Plato's contempt for the Sophists (from whence: sophistry). I had the realisation in the past year or so that I'm frequently, so to speak, bringing a didactic knife to a rhetorical gunfight. The two modes mix poorly.
The field of epistemology, and criteria of truth is one that far more people could use grounding in. How do you make a determination that something is or isn't true? Based on incomplete information, partial understanding of that, and limited time? Turns out there's a study of the problem, within philosophy, and some useful guidance:
Is there some newsletter or blog I could follow with more thoughts of yours like these? I find myself spending more and more time on this topic and a comment like this is a wonderful jumping-off point for me on my 'down whatever rabbit-hole' study days :-).
EDIT: just realized we have profile pages and you have links on yours. Silly me.
I'd start with the distinction between didactic and rhetorical speech, for starters, a distinction and conflict which goes back to Plato's contempt for the Sophists (from whence: sophistry). I had the realisation in the past year or so that I'm frequently, so to speak, bringing a didactic knife to a rhetorical gunfight. The two modes mix poorly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
There is the distinction between formal logical argument (syllogism), and more informal argument.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
And between valid and sound arguments.
The field of epistemology, and criteria of truth is one that far more people could use grounding in. How do you make a determination that something is or isn't true? Based on incomplete information, partial understanding of that, and limited time? Turns out there's a study of the problem, within philosophy, and some useful guidance:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth
Protip: apply coherence, consistency, or pragmatic principles where possible. Be aware of the others and their weaknesses though.
The best use of logical fallacies I've found is to apply them to my own thinking, and to be aware of their use as rhetorical ploys by others.
I'd stumbled across a set of frequently used "dirty tricks" some time back, collected here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2d0r1d/the_rea...