I've considered for some time the issues you seem to have (fortunately) developed an allergy to. For a while, I felt allergic, but couldn't pin down what was bugging me.
The article linked is what I'd call a mild version of a discourse which leads much further. To be brief I won't address the details of that whole journey.
Since you ask about identifying propaganda, the key part of the article linked is this: "This is a lesson that therapy has taken to heart, but one that "pure science" continues to neglect.".
primary alarm bell: the subtle disparagement of "pure science". This signifies a mistrust of rationality and evidence-based reasoning, and ultimately, the pursuit of objective truth.
Also, the linked article is badly argued. The idea that knowing is "half" the battle is nowhere disproved. Of course, it is difficult to quantify respective portions of hypothetical battles in abstract ways! But that's kind of the point of using a shortcut like "knowing is half the battle" in the first place.
Surely knowing is some quantity of the battle? Then what quantity is it? If it can't be defined, then is it really true that "pure science" would be behind a 50% proposition that couldn't be supported? And what do we do about it anyway? What's the rest of this article's battle?
hence the second alarm-bell: vagueness. The article applies a firm conclusion to an ill-defined argument. The fallacy against which the article purports to argue is not well-defined, so neither is the counter-argument.
There are further alarm bells but those are the main ones I'd pick. I don't know what else is in the course (though I'd be interested to see, based on this). But I can say that this part is veering toward bullshit of the kind that goes further, ultimately undermining people's confidence in truth. Worse, making them feel self-righteous about that position. Even worse, using people with good intentions to distribute a hidden agenda.
I've considered for some time the issues you seem to have (fortunately) developed an allergy to. For a while, I felt allergic, but couldn't pin down what was bugging me.
The article linked is what I'd call a mild version of a discourse which leads much further. To be brief I won't address the details of that whole journey. Since you ask about identifying propaganda, the key part of the article linked is this: "This is a lesson that therapy has taken to heart, but one that "pure science" continues to neglect.".
primary alarm bell: the subtle disparagement of "pure science". This signifies a mistrust of rationality and evidence-based reasoning, and ultimately, the pursuit of objective truth.
Also, the linked article is badly argued. The idea that knowing is "half" the battle is nowhere disproved. Of course, it is difficult to quantify respective portions of hypothetical battles in abstract ways! But that's kind of the point of using a shortcut like "knowing is half the battle" in the first place.
Surely knowing is some quantity of the battle? Then what quantity is it? If it can't be defined, then is it really true that "pure science" would be behind a 50% proposition that couldn't be supported? And what do we do about it anyway? What's the rest of this article's battle?
hence the second alarm-bell: vagueness. The article applies a firm conclusion to an ill-defined argument. The fallacy against which the article purports to argue is not well-defined, so neither is the counter-argument.
There are further alarm bells but those are the main ones I'd pick. I don't know what else is in the course (though I'd be interested to see, based on this). But I can say that this part is veering toward bullshit of the kind that goes further, ultimately undermining people's confidence in truth. Worse, making them feel self-righteous about that position. Even worse, using people with good intentions to distribute a hidden agenda.