# Typos Megathread **URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/typos-megathread/1695 **Category:** Other **Tags:** elliot-temple **Created:** [January 7, 2023, 4:38pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/typos-megathread/1695 "2023-01-07T16:38:37Z") **Posts on this page:** 1 **Showing post:** 5
### Author: ![MetaCreation](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/metacreation/32/2670_2.png) [@MetaCreation](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/MetaCreation) #### Post date: [February 6, 2023, 9:04am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/typos-megathread/1695/5 "2023-02-06T09:04:46Z")
> [@Purpose of Thinking; Positive and Negative Arguments; Clear Goals](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/purpose-of-thinking-positive-and-negative-arguments-clear-goals/1708/1): > > Positive arguments can technically all be converted to negative arguments (if they make sense). So we only need critical thinking. However, using positive arguments is fine. People find it convenient and natural because they’re used to it. Just be careful about selective attention. Often an idea is good at something _but the alternatives are too_. Positive traits are often shared by many or all of the ideas being considered, so finding that a specific idea has a positive trait doesn’t mean it’s better than the other ideas. On the other hand, important negative traits often aren’t shared by the other ideas. Ideas weren’t considering often aren’t all broken in the same way. (Sometimes they are and we need to think of some new ideas.) “Ideas weren’t considering often…” There seems to be a word missing or a wrong word here. Should it be “Ideas we’re considering often…”? --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/typos-megathread/1695)._