tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post7322022217627864596..comments2024-03-28T17:44:11.289+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Why does one-step reasoning dominate in modern discourse?Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-11722936365005990752011-03-03T06:00:53.898+00:002011-03-03T06:00:53.898+00:00I'm sure it is a major factor.I'm sure it is a major factor.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-16159563447252192462011-03-02T22:28:06.003+00:002011-03-02T22:28:06.003+00:00I am currently reading Neil Postman's Technopo...I am currently reading Neil Postman's Technopoly and I am sure there is a link between his concept of glut of information, where people rely on revealed information and confuse trivial knowledge with wisdom and your observation that one step reasoning dominates today. <br /><br />I am not certain how they are linked, but Postman pointed out that the technology shapes the way people in that society think and modern society is all about being told what is the truth and accepting it, instead of working toward it themselves. <br /><br />Further, Postman also points out that an overload of information without controlling institutions means that people lose their reference point for understanding the world and will accept anything as truth. <br /><br />As I said, I am not sure of the link, but as I was reading that book I was reminded of this post and I'm sure the processes Postman talks about lead to a lack of multi-step reasoning which you observed is prevalent today.<br /><br /><br />- BreezeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-70665315015130677982011-02-08T10:06:03.810+00:002011-02-08T10:06:03.810+00:00Daniel - surely you don't expect actual exampl...Daniel - surely you don't expect actual examples from *this* blog, do you ;-).<br /><br />The only way these matters can be discussed is for the readership to provide their own examples (i.e. the 'dog whistle' method of communication, as PC mavens name it). <br /><br />I simply mean the mainstream reasoning deployed by mainstream media - this fact implies that. <br /><br />Intellectual media deploy two-step reasoning - this fact does not mean that (as dumb or evil people believe) but instead the opposite. <br /><br />This explains why hate facts *must* be kept-out of the mainstream media (or buried behind boring and confusing obfuscation) - because one-step reasoning will lead the audience to non-PC conclusions.Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-22528391858997164292011-02-08T01:45:41.514+00:002011-02-08T01:45:41.514+00:00Mr. Charlton,
This seems to be on the right track...Mr. Charlton,<br /><br />This seems to be on the right track to me, but I still am not completely sure what you mean by one-step reasoning. <br /><br />Can you please give one or two real-world examples that you find typical of "one-step reasoning"?Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-23552636125816452622011-02-08T00:56:58.774+00:002011-02-08T00:56:58.774+00:00A good comment. Political discussion today consist...A good comment. Political discussion today consists of slogans, talking points, and one-liners, largely for the reason you suggest--the lack of an overall structure of meaning that's understood to be implicit in the way things are. Liberal theory accepts that situation and then tries to find neutral technical ways to resolve disputes. It fails, of course, so you end up once again with pure assertion but at a higher level.James Kalbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17262354596266250867noreply@blogger.com