User:LaneMaher1/Logic and dialectic/SamiB11 Peer Review

In reviewing Lane Maher1 page about logic and dialectic, I found a couple of ways that it could be improved. There are a couple of places where words could be further defined to enhance a readers understanding of the topic. While someone who understands what logic and dialect is may be able to understand this page, someone with limited understanding of the topic could need a bit more explanation of specific terms. One example is the lack of definition or example of what a fact and opinion is that would be really helpful for the reader. If provided in this context, readers could understand why logic and dialect is useful and needed in both opinions and facts. Next is the assumption that there are truths. While we can agree we live in a world that operates with given truths, I think deep diving into what makes something true or a capital T truth is difficult. What is true for one person could be different for someone else, just as time effects truth too. People used to think that it was a complete truth that the Earth was flat. What does that mean about the things we believe to be true today? I think the page would benefit from engaging in such dialogue that shows how using logic can persuade readings to understand both options and "truths" but also how it can be used to convince people of things that are not true. Just because something is logistical does not mean that its true, so how can logic be used in that manner and what does that say about communication?

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)