,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Thesis: a large share of the intellectual arrogance that marks IDW and related commentary comes from the belief that logic is a substitute for specific knowledge, rather than a tool for working with it.
I can't count the number of times I've seen "logical argumentation" mooted as the sole or key criterion of intellectual value in debates on here. It's an easy habit to fall into; it pits thought against authority. But good arguments can, and often do, rest on faulty assumptions.
It's no accident that attempts to logic one's way to "history" without actually knowing any history invariably fail. It's not history's fault that they do. It's that there is no path from "logical argumentation" to factual knowledge if you didn't start with any factual knowledge.
And starting with a plausible-ish fact or two, generally speaking, doesn't yield much better results. (See yesterday's thread.) This is why "expertise" is more than a matter of credentialing or gatekeeping. Some subjects require considerable knowledge before logic is of any use.
