Here are a couple I think are important in the legal context (and might be important in the policy debate context):
• Incomplete data/Limited data
• Incomplete perspective
• Lack of context (poor framing)
• Lack of comparison/base line
• Incomplete or irrelevant expertise
• Non-mutually exclusive interpretations (this is generally fallocies of refutation–I’m curious if fallocies of refutation or criticism are a unique category of logic)
Reasoning with metaphors/analogies
How do we reason with non-logic based methods?
How do we logic with emotion or intuition?
* This doesn’t really fall under social entrepreneurship–but rather as an issue of improving reasoning skills–which in the coontext of K-12 and college education represents social entrepreneurship.
|There are no public comments available to display.|