the fisherman of halicarnassus

aunt sally is a term that refers to a straw man argument, which is a logical fallacy that involves presenting a distorted or misrepresented version of an opposing argument in order to make it easier to attack or refute. the term "aunt sally" comes from a traditional british fairground game in which players throw sticks or balls at a wooden figure, typically depicting a woman, in order to knock it down.

in the context of debating or arguing, the "aunt sally" is the simplified, distorted version of an opposing argument that is presented by one party in order to make it easier to attack or refute. this can be done in order to create the impression that the opposing argument is weaker or less valid than it actually is, or to mislead or deceive the audience by presenting a distorted version of the opposing argument.

for example, imagine that you are arguing with someone about the benefits of a vegetarian diet. they might present an "aunt sally" version of your argument by claiming that you believe that all meat is unhealthy and that everyone should become a vegetarian, which is a distortion of your actual argument. they might then attack this distorted version of your argument, saying that it is unrealistic or impractical, without addressing the actual points that you are making.

in order to avoid committing the straw man fallacy, it is important to accurately represent the opposing argument and to engage with it on its own terms, rather than attacking a simplified or distorted version of it. this can help to ensure that the argument is fair and based on accurate information, rather than relying on misrepresentations or distortions of the opposing viewpoint.

steelmanning is a critical thinking technique that involves trying to understand and present the strongest possible version of an argument or position, even if it is one that you disagree with or find flawed. the goal of steelmanning is not to defend or advocate for the argument, but rather to understand it more deeply and to better understand why someone might hold that position. this can be useful in a variety of contexts, such as when you are trying to have a productive conversation or debate with someone who holds a different perspective, when you are trying to anticipate objections to your own argument, or when you are trying to identify the underlying assumptions or values that inform someone's argument.

here are a few examples of how steelmanning might be applied in different contexts:

imagine that you are trying to have a conversation with a friend about the value of wearing masks to prevent the spread of covid-19. your friend argues that masks are unnecessary because they don't provide complete protection and can make it harder to breathe. to steelman their argument, you might try to understand why they might hold this view, even if you disagree with it. you might ask questions like: "what do you think are the main reasons that people might believe masks are unnecessary?" "what kinds of experiences or evidence might lead someone to conclude that masks don't provide enough protection?" by asking these questions, you are trying to understand the strongest version of your friend's argument, rather than simply dismissing it as misguided or wrong.
suppose that you are writing an essay in which you argue that the government should invest more in renewable energy sources. one of the objections to your argument might be that renewable energy is too expensive and that it is not feasible to rely on it as our primary source of energy. to steelman this objection, you might try to understand the underlying assumptions and values that inform it. for example, you might ask yourself: "what do people who believe that renewable energy is too expensive think are the main costs associated with it?" "what do they see as the main benefits of non-renewable energy sources, and how do they weigh those benefits against the costs?" by answering these questions, you can better understand the perspective of those who disagree with you and anticipate their objections more effectively.

imagine that you are trying to have a productive conversation with someone who holds a very different political perspective from your own. one way to approach this conversation might be to try to steelman the other person's arguments. for example, if they argue that the government should not provide social services because it is not the government's role to take care of people, you might try to understand why they might hold this view, even if you disagree with it. you might ask questions like: "what do you think are the main reasons that people might believe that the government should not provide social services?" "what kinds of experiences or evidence might lead someone to conclude that it is not the government's role to take care of people?" by asking these questions, you are trying to understand the strongest version of the other person's argument and to identify any common ground you might have, rather than simply dismissing their perspective as misguided or wrong.

this is an argument that asserts that a claim must be true because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. for example, "there is no evidence that aliens don't exist, so they must exist."

this is an argument that suggests that one event is the cause of another event, without sufficient evidence to support the claim. for example, "i wore my lucky socks and won the game, so the socks must have brought me luck."

this is an argument that introduces a new topic in order to distract from the original issue being discussed. for example, "yes, i know i'm late for work again, but have you seen how bad the traffic is this morning?"

this is an argument that misrepresents an opponent's position in order to make it easier to attack. for example, "those who support gun control want to take away all guns, including hunting rifles and shotguns."

this is an argument that relies on the credibility or expertise of a person or organization to support a claim, without providing any evidence to back it up. for example, "the ceo of a major pharmaceutical company says that their new drug is completely safe, so it must be true."

this is an argument that is based on insufficient evidence, resulting in a conclusion that is not supported by the available information. for example, "i met one rude person from france, so all french people must be rude."

this is an argument that presents two options as the only possibilities, when in reality there may be more options available. for example, "you either support the war or you're unpatriotic."

fallacies are mistakes in reasoning or arguments that are based on incorrect or flawed logic. there are many different types of fallacies, and they can occur in written or oral arguments. it is important to be aware of fallacies in order to critically evaluate arguments and make informed decisions, and to avoid using fallacies in your own arguments.

the slippery slope is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument suggests that a small initial action or event will inevitably lead to a chain of other events, culminating in a significant, negative consequence. this type of argument suggests that if the initial action is allowed to happen, it will set off a chain reaction that cannot be stopped, ultimately leading to an undesirable outcome.

for example, consider the following argument:

"if we allow students to use their phones in class, it will lead to students being constantly distracted and unable to pay attention. this will result in lower grades and a decrease in overall academic performance. therefore, we should not allow students to use their phones in class."

in this argument, the initial action of allowing students to use their phones in class is presented as the first step in a chain of events that will ultimately lead to negative consequences. however, this argument does not take into account the possibility that students might be able to use their phones responsibly or that other measures could be put in place to prevent distractions.

one key problem with the slippery slope fallacy is that it often relies on exaggerated or unrealistic assumptions about the consequences of an action. it is important to carefully evaluate the evidence and consider alternative explanations when confronted with this type of argument.

in critical thinking, it is important to be aware of the slippery slope fallacy and to carefully consider the evidence and logic behind an argument, rather than simply accepting it because it seems to follow a logical sequence of events. it is also important to consider alternative explanations and to be open to the possibility that the initial action or event may not necessarily lead to the negative consequences that are being predicted.

aristotle's rhetoric is a theory of communication that was developed by the ancient greek philosopher aristotle. it is based on the idea that effective communication requires understanding the audience, the speaker's goals, and the context in which the communication takes place.

there are three main elements of aristotle's rhetoric:

ethos: this refers to the credibility or character of the speaker. a speaker with a strong ethos is more likely to be trusted and believed by the audience.
pathos: this refers to the emotional appeal of the argument. a speaker who can appeal to the emotions of the audience is more likely to persuade them.
logos: this refers to the logical appeal of the argument. a speaker who presents a well-reasoned, logical argument is more likely to persuade the audience.

to win an argument using aristotle's rhetoric, it is important to consider these elements and try to establish your own credibility, appeal to the emotions of the audience, and present a logical argument.

here are some examples of how to use aristotle's rhetoric to win an argument:

– establish your credibility: if you are an expert on the topic you are discussing, make sure to highlight your qualifications and experience. this will help to build your ethos and make your argument more persuasive.
– appeal to emotions: try to connect with your audience on an emotional level. this could involve sharing personal stories or using anecdotes to illustrate your point.
–use logic: make sure to present a well-reasoned, logical argument. use evidence to support your points and address any counterarguments.

by considering these elements of aristotle's rhetoric, you can craft a persuasive argument that is more likely to be effective in winning over your audience.

ad hominem is a type of argument where someone attacks or criticizes the person making an argument, rather than the argument itself. this is often done in an attempt to undermine the person's credibility or character, rather than focusing on the merits of their argument.

here are some examples of ad hominem:

"you can't trust what he says about politics because he's a convicted criminal."
"she can't be right about the environment because she works for a big oil company."
"he's just saying that because he's trying to be popular."
in each of these examples, the person making the argument is attacked or criticized, rather than the argument itself being discussed. this can be a logical fallacy because it doesn't address the substance of the argument and can be used to distract from a discussion of the issue at hand.

freedom of speech, or the ability to freely express one's thoughts and opinions, was a concept that was explored by several ancient greek philosophers.

one of the earliest philosophers to discuss freedom of speech was socrates, who believed in the importance of questioning and challenging established beliefs and ideas. socrates believed that the pursuit of truth and knowledge was more important than the fear of offending others, and he famously stood by his beliefs even in the face of persecution and death.

other ancient greek philosophers, such as plato and aristotle, also recognized the value of free expression and the importance of allowing individuals to engage in open and honest dialogue. plato, in particular, argued that the ability to freely express one's thoughts was essential for the functioning of a just society.

however, it's worth noting that the concept of freedom of speech as we understand it today was not fully developed in ancient greece. in fact, many ancient greek philosophers believed that certain forms of speech, such as blasphemy or treason, should be restricted. nonetheless, the ideas of socrates and other ancient greek philosophers laid the foundation for modern ideas about the importance of freedom of speech and the value of open and honest dialogue.

john stuart mill, a 19th century philosopher and political economist, is best known for his work on the concept of liberty, particularly freedom of speech. in his essay on liberty, mill argues that individuals should be free to express their ideas and opinions without fear of censorship or punishment, as long as their speech does not harm others.

according to mill, the primary reason for protecting freedom of speech is that it allows for the exchange of ideas and the free flow of information. this, in turn, allows people to form their own opinions and make informed decisions. without the ability to freely express and explore different viewpoints, individuals would be unable to challenge and question the status quo, leading to a stagnant and intellectually stagnant society.

mill also believed that freedom of speech serves as a safeguard against the abuse of power. when people are able to openly criticize and express their opinions about those in positions of power, it helps to hold those individuals accountable and prevent them from becoming tyrannical.

however, mill recognized that there are limits to freedom of speech. he argued that the harm principle should be applied to speech, meaning that speech should not be restricted unless it causes harm to others. for example, speech that incites violence or causes direct harm to an individual's reputation should be restricted.

overall, mill's belief in the importance of freedom of speech has had a significant impact on modern ideas about individual liberty and the role of government in regulating speech. his ideas continue to be debated and discussed by philosophers and policymakers today.