I graduated from college long before "Critical thinking" became in vogue. While I believe that I have a good sense for when someone is using rhetorical devices or as you might say cognitively manipulative ones to make arguments for something which I know to be wrong, this discussion has made me ponder a possible new view on this.It's certainly useful to learn the difference between a well reasoned argument and a cognitively manipulative one, but as we've been over already in this thread, it's not the be-all end-all.
I assume that when people use rhetorical or cognitively manipulative devices to support, say a heretical position in relation to God and truth, that they are generally being deliberately deceptive to either cover a discovered hole in their position, or maybe worse, to persuade someone away from the true gospel of Christ.
While I have seen times when I believe that someone is completely clueless as to the incoherence of their argument, or their attempt at cognitive manipulation of a train of thought, I generally believe it to be a sly deception. Am I wrong?
I guess my question is, when someone uses rhetorical or cognitive manipulation to support the unsupportable, how often is that a sly manipulation, and how often is the person actually clueless to their own incoherent logic?
Regards,
George Clay