Should jurors and voters be required to understand "Fallacies of Argument"?

Question

"Fallacies of Argument" are widely employed in politics and in the practice of the law; so, I have limited my focus to these two areas.

I believe in education; make it free!!
For an understanding of the phrase, please perform a search, before answering.

Education, as in Empowerment. I am opposed to limiting voter rights, you miss my point, entirely.

Answer 1

I spend a good deal of time trying to explain the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy in particular, and have quite limited results, so I think jury instruction would be inadequate. If so, then it might be difficult to fill jury panels. I think P.T.Barnum said something along the lines of,"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

Answer 2

Such a requirement would be challenged as racially discriminatory, since some races are mentally better equipped than others to understand logical fallacies. The inferior races would assert that the races are "equal," and so their unequal scores on tests of ability to recognize logical fallacies must be "biased." And corrupt leftist officials would favor their claims.

But even without the difficulties presented by racial differences in a racially mixed society, you can't ever impose standards (of excellence, of quality) on people whose votes determine what the standards will be.

Every lamebrain thinks his opinion is as good as anyone else's, which it isn't, but his vote counts as much as anyone else's does, and the lamebrains - being the bulk of the bell curve distribution for intelligence - will always outnumber, and therefore will always outvote, the wise.

I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to have minimum intellectual qualifications for voting or for jury duty. If it were possible, you'd much improve the way the world works. But in order to get from here, to there, you'll need some political power strong enough to sweep away the fallacy-loving democratic system, despite all the opposition of its suckers and its hidden parasites.

Answer 3

Yes, but people would likely debate what a fallacy is. Some have a very loose concept of what truth is, and some can't come to a conclusion on anything, so the very test used to determine who thinks logically would cause consternation and lawsuits. It would be considered by many to be a poll tax for the modern age.

Answer 4

Yes!!! any one voting or serving on a jury should be subject to some type of competency test. I personally feel we should still have a poll tax...why should some one who doesn't own property for any number of reasons be able to increase taxes on property owners..... they(non property owners) are nothing but leaches when it comes to them voting an increase in real estate taxes. i know this is not exactly what you asked, but I think the two go pretty much hand in hand.

Answer 5

Nice idea, but it will unfortunately never happen, at least not fr voting. Jury duty could adopt something like that.