Hi Nate - Happy New Year and as we say in UK - break a leg!

Hi Jack! I’m actually in Cambridge UK this year. You?

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1CE2E2KEti1VHJ4T5U8SZXGmMOlX1N_RqWc3dFzu6EAM/edit?usp=sharing

I vote for 2

All lives equally

Number 2

I vote 2

#2

every one together but the animal one.

Yep. #2!

#2

Yes, I guess I would say 2 as well

1 or 2

actualy, changing my to #1

In my two it might be 4

twon

town!!

2 plus disapproval of race-based appeals

Two, with the addition of people of all abilities.

3 seems obvous

3

3

Ask for clarification

3

3

3

3

3

It might help counteract the power relationship

I totally buy that

I see many students display black and white thinking, and I can see this being helpful in understanding more complex issues.

Maybe we need to set up the discussion with the expectation that clarification is not an attack but an invitation.

I think a lot of people are used to requests for clarification being done as a rhetorical tactic and are surprised that we might actually be for real.

Seems like there would need to be a certain amount of trust built between the instructor and the student beforehand.

Agree with Ornaith.

The importance of body language, etc., can be one reason why this is hard to do in an online format in real life.

I think a strong motivator for intellectual charity is simply that it is conducive to healthy, non-judgemental dialogue/debate

I always tell students "I know it's weird but I almost never ask rhetorical questions."

Teaching them that charity is persuasive - isn't that increasing or supporting the adversarial mondset we should try to reduce?

I often frame the clarifying questions as, "Can you explain what you mean by..." or "Can you say more about..." (rather than just "What do you mean by that?" which to me sounds more intimidating).

Maybe open any class with a review of how to question one another? Set up a simple and non-threatening example for practice?

So teach them the reasons for charity together?

the moral and the persuasive ones?

When I hear myself say to a student, "Could you clarify what you said about x?" I have come to hear myself challenging the clarity of what they said if not its validity. I've tried to just say "Could you say more about x?" which seems to be heard more as an open invitation to continue forward rather than a directive to (kind of) backtrack.

I can also help to ask students "Why might it be useful to be charitable?" and get them to give the reasons.

Many fine people on both sides…

Here context might matter? You were on a tour, not in a class.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1CE2E2KEti1VHJ4T5U8SZXGmMOlX1N_RqWc3dFzu6EAM/edit?usp=sharing

Is there maybe a point in time where charity about the argument should be replaced by charity about the person? I.e.: Instead of "how could this be a good argument" "why would they say that, assuming thy are a general good person" and then build the answer on that basis?

Helpful point, Kat.

Love that point, Kat!

Yes, exactly, which is why soemtiems not engaging is then the charitable thing to do?

Good point, Kat. Thanks. (Hadn't thought of the "non-engaging as charitable" idea!)

cf. work on anti-fragility in dealing with trauma

What about the danger of toxic charity?

As teachers, we have a lot of authority, even asking questions might lead them to asserting a view they would not endorse.

especially if they have a very different worldview, the ,most charitable interpretation from my point of view might not be what they meant from their point of view.

Great point about the implications of differing worldviews, Kat!

D

D

D

D

D

d

d

D

D

It is the least about the person, and it does not insult.

And it is not untrue

D

D

D

D

D

D

C

But that might not be strong enough

Oops! I meant C.

you might need C

globally, a, but locally d

D because of its allowance for range of choices.

A

B?

This was a difficult one.

What about alternatives that are missing?

depends on audience, probab;y

Don’t you need “ban” in the missing one?

Missing premises relate to premissary saturation

depends on the costs of a ban. if a ban is very low cost (in context) then D might be enough

A and D both seem to require the reader to actively do things to reduce inequality. B and C, on the other hand, seem to require to the reader to avoid making inequality worse.

It also seems we are deciding between setting up a valid syllogism vs. a strong/weak argument.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1CE2E2KEti1VHJ4T5U8SZXGmMOlX1N_RqWc3dFzu6EAM/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1CE2E2KEti1VHJ4T5U8SZXGmMOlX1N_RqWc3dFzu6EAM/edit?usp=sharing

Where are these in the slides?

Sorry folks, I went based off the timer, apparently the Zoom overlords would have given us a little more time 🙂

MindMup How-To Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pR62tps5u4WYbFxgFm5P-WY3xSzo6pDlL1Z1P_dDPg0/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks for this awesome resource, Javier!!

Yes, thanks, indeed. Most helpful and interesting.

Thank you for this!

Yes! Thanks so much for making all of this available.

Thank you so much for this!

This was great! Thank you!

Thanks! This was very interesting

Thanks, a lot of fun!

Thank you!

Thanks for the workshop!

Thank you, Nate!

Thank you!

thanks very much :)

Thank you. This was very interesting and helpful.

I have done pre/post testing of argument analysis skills eg spotting unstated evaluative premises (and used the tests to show progress). Happy to talk about it

I have to go. Thanks so much!

I have to go but again, thanks to Nate and all for an excellent presentation.

Thank you for this!

Great conference!!!

Thank you for this very informative discussion!

thanks it was fun!