25
February 2016
Mid-afternoon. You had an excellent lunch at
Longhorn’s with Jen as your requested server. Earlier you drove to the nearby
McSwain’s Carpets and found a striking Armstrong flooring that you both like
better than the tile floors you have seen (plus it is warmer). Also, you talked
to Craig and Alta as well as Jeanne (Jim is playing golf). The eight of you are
meeting in Woodland Park, Colorado in late August and will spend a week or so
in the mountains. Everyone in your travel group is excited for the upcoming
late summer trip. – Amorella
1538
hours. Carol always goes with Armstrong over tile. It certainly is more
practical. Later, when the bathrooms are completed we may put wood flooring in
the living and dining rooms; we still have our original carpet; so we will also
put carpet in our bedroom as well as the smaller guest room. Kim’s old room still
has excellent carpet and won’t need to be replaced.
26
February 2016
You didn’t feel comfortable posting
yesterday’s work because it had nothing to do with GMG. The whole Dead Eleven
business has been percolating on/in low. Carol is about to leave to give blood
at Hoxworth. – Amorella
1000
hours. My ‘notes’ on eleven begin with the cut out sketch of the little fellow
who has open eyes for feet who leaves tracks with eyes closed.
Do you see any reason for the opened eye
feet and closed eye steps? – Amorella
1203
hours. I don’t remember paying much attention to it before but I probably did
back in its late 1980’s creation.
How about something simple like walking
forward with eyes open? – Amorella
1207
hours. That sounds good to me but why bring it up in the first place?
***
Conversation: Draft 1 – M=Merlyn's soul S=Socrates' soul fictionalized to other names
M-Two once new souls without eyes, a trunk, hands and feet.
S-And, here we are again, old friends, without eyes and trunk,
hands and feet
Hearts, we have
M and, Minds too, but alas, they are secondary sources and not
our own
S-Even Dead they do not suspect that it is we who are the
primary.
M-Hearts and Minds rise and set by their own son
S-Even though we are the breath they take in
M-How was it though without holding heartansoul within
S-We were essence without wonder
M-And, we were not self-generated and thus self-serving (1238)
S-We are not self-serving
M-Such a weakness in reason of heartanmind
S-It is all Saudade
as in Brazilian Portuguese.
***
1254
hours. Stopped with weakness in reason. Time to add this as a reminder. [Self
evident truth]
** **
List of fallacies
Edited from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A
fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric, which undermines an
argument's logical validity or more generally an argument's logical soundness.
Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies.
Formal fallacies
A formal
fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument’s form. All
formal fallacies are specific types of non-sequiturs.
Anecdotal fallacy – using a
personal experience or an isolated example instead of sound reasoning or
compelling evidence.
Appeal to probability – is a
statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the
case (or might be the case).
Argument from fallacy – assumes that
if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion
is false.
Base rate fallacy – making a
probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking into
account the effect of prior probabilities.
Conjunction fallacy – assumption
that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable
than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.
Masked man fallacy (illicit
substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a
true statement can lead to a false one.
Propositional fallacies
A
propositional fallacy is an error in logic that concerns compound propositions.
For a compound proposition to be true, the truth values of its constituent
parts must satisfy the relevant logical connectives that occur in it (most
commonly: , , , , ). The following fallacies involve inferences whose correctness is
not guaranteed by the behavior of those logical connectives, and hence, which
are not logically guaranteed to yield true conclusions.
Types of Propositional fallacies:
•
Affirming a disjunct – concluded
that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct
is true; A or B; A, therefore not B.
•
•
Affirming the consequent – the
antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the
consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.
•
•
Denying the antecedent – the
consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the
antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B.
•
Quantification fallacies
A
quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the quantifiers of the
premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion.
Types of Quantification fallacies:
•
Existential fallacy – an argument
that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion.
•
Informal fallacies
Informal
fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural
(formal) flaws and usually require examination of the argument's content.
•
Appeal to the stone (argumentum
ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for
its absurdity.
•
•
Argument from ignorance (appeal to
ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true
because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.
•
•
Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how
this could be true, therefore it must be false.
•
•
Argument from repetition (argumentum
ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until
nobody cares to discuss it anymore; sometimes confused with proof by assertion
•
•
Argument from silence (argumentum
ex silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence,
rather than the existence of evidence.
•
•
Argument to moderation (false
compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam)
– assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.
•
•
Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion
of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent.
•
ergo decedo – where a critic's
perceived affiliation is seen as the underlying reason for the criticism and
the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether.
•
Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by
verbosity, below.
•
•
Begging the question (petitio
principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument
as a premise.
•
•
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see
– onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is
false.
•
•
Circular reasoning (circulus
in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying
to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
•
•
Circular cause and consequence – where
the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
•
•
Continuum fallacy (fallacy of
the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man
fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.
Faulty generalizations
Faulty
generalizations – reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of
relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the
conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization
is thus produced.
Accident – an exception to a
generalization is ignored.
No true Scotsman – when a
generalization is made true only when a counterexample is ruled out on shaky
grounds.
Cherry picking (suppressed
evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data
that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant
portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
Survivorship bias – when a small
number of survivors of a given process are actively promoted while completely
ignoring a large number of failures
False analogy – an argument
by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.
Hasty generalization (fallacy of
insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely
fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse
accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.
Inductive fallacy – A more
general name to some fallacies, such as hasty generalization. It happens when a
conclusion is made of premises that lightly support it.
Misleading vividness – involves
describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional
occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.
Overwhelming exception – an accurate
generalization that comes with qualifications that eliminate so many cases that
what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led
one to assume.
Thought-terminating cliché – a
commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive
dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move on to other topics etc.
but in any case, end the debate with a cliché—not a point.
Red herring fallacies
A red
herring fallacy, one of the main subtypes of fallacies of relevance, is an
error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in
order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical
inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real
arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.
Red herring – argument
given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention
away from the subject of argument.
•
Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
•
Poisoning the well – a type of ad
hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the
intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.
Abusive fallacy – a subtype of
"ad hominem" when it turns into verbal abuse of the opponent rather
than arguing about the originally proposed argument.
•
•
Appeal to authority (argumentum
ab auctoritate) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position
or authority of the person asserting it.
•
•
Appeal to accomplishment – where an
assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.
•
Appeal to consequences (argumentum
ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts
positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to
distract from the initial discussion.
•
•
Appeal to emotion – where an
argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of
valid reasoning.
•
Appeal to motive – where a
premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer.
•
•
Appeal to nature – wherein
judgment is based solely on whether the subject of judgment is 'natural' or
'unnatural'. (Sometimes also called the "naturalistic fallacy", but
is not to be confused with the other fallacies by that name)
•
•
Appeal to novelty (argumentum
novitatis/antiquitatis) – where a proposal is claimed to be superior or
better solely because it is new or modern.
•
•
Appeal to poverty (argumentum
ad Lazarum) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or
refuting because the arguer is wealthy). (Opposite of appeal to wealth.)
•
•
Appeal to tradition (argumentum
ad antiquitatem) – a conclusion supported solely because it has long been
held to be true.
•
•
Appeal to wealth (argumentum
ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or
refuting because the arguer is poor). (Sometimes taken together with
the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer's financial situation.)
•
•
Argument from silence (argumentum
ex silentio) – a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.
•
•
Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an
argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.
•
•
Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the
majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or
good solely because many people believe it to be so.
•
•
Association fallacy (guilt by
association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the
same.
•
•
Bulverism (psychogenetic fallacy) –
inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological
reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the
origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a
falsehood.
•
•
Chronological snobbery – where a
thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else,
clearly false, was also commonly held.
•
•
Fallacy of relative privation
("not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to the
existence of more important problems in the world, regardless of whether those
problems bear relevance to the initial argument.
•
•
Genetic fallacy – where a
conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather
than its current meaning or context.
•
•
Judgmental language – insulting or
pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment.
•
•
Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought
fallacy, naturalistic fallacy) – claims about what ought to be on the basis of
statements about what is.
•
•
Pooh-pooh - dismissing an argument
unworthy of serious consideration.
•
•
Straw man fallacy – an argument
based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
•
•
Texas sharpshooter fallacy –
improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data.
•
•
Tu quoque ("you too", appeal to hypocrisy, I'm rubber and
you're glue) – the argument states that a certain position is false or wrong or
should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in
accordance with that position.
•
•
Two wrongs make a right – occurs when
it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out.
•
Conditional or questionable
fallacies
•
Broken window fallacy – an argument
that disregards lost opportunity costs (typically non-obvious, difficult to
determine or otherwise hidden) associated with destroying property of others,
or other ways of externalizing costs onto others. For example, an argument that
states breaking a window generates income for a window fitter, but disregards
the fact that the money spent on the new window cannot now be spent on new shoes.
•
•
Definist fallacy – involves the
confusion between two notions by defining one in terms of the other.
•
•
Naturalistic fallacy – attempts to
prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term
"good" in terms of either one or more claims about natural properties
(sometimes also taken to mean the appeal to nature) or God's will.
•
Slippery slope (thin edge of
the wedge, camel’s nose) – asserting that a relatively small first step
inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant
impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen.
While this fallacy is a popular one, it is, in its essence, an appeal to
probability fallacy. (e.g. if person x does y then z would [probably] occur,
leading to q, leading to w, leading to e.) This is also related to the Reductio
ad absurdum.
Selected
and edited from - https://en.wikipediaDOTorg/wiki/List_of_fallacies
**
**
1811
hours. I have to read the above once again. I love this stuff. It is no wonder
with the above in mind that I feel I am mostly fiction. What it comes down to
is the fallacy ‘Self Evident Truth’.
** **
Self-evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In
epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one
that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof.
Some
epistemologists deny that any proposition can be self-evident. For most others,
the belief that oneself is conscious is offered as an example of self-evidence.
However, one's belief that someone else is conscious is not epistemically
self-evident.
The
following proposition is often said to be self-evident:
A finite whole is greater than,
or equal to, any of its parts
Also
self evident is the statement that two plus two is equal to 4.
A
logical argument for a self-evident conclusion would demonstrate only an
ignorance of the purpose of persuasively arguing for the conclusion based on
one or more premises that differ from it (see ignoratio elenchi and begging the question).
Analytic propositions
It is
sometimes said that a self-evident proposition is one whose denial is
self-contradictory. It is also sometimes said that an analytic proposition is
one whose denial is self-contradictory. But the concepts do mean different things.
Provided
that one understands a self-evident proposition, one believes it, and
self-evident propositions are not in need of proof. Likewise, that their denial
is self-contradictory does not have to be proven. It is in this sense that the
self-contradictions at work in self-evident and analytic propositions are
different.
Not all
analytic propositions are self-evident, and it is sometimes claimed that not
all self-evident propositions are analytic: e.g. my knowledge that I am
conscious.
Other uses
Claims
of self-evidence also exist outside of epistemology.
Informal speech
In
informal speech, self-evident often merely means obvious, but the
epistemological definition is more strict.
Moral propositions
Moral
propositions can also be said to be self-evident. For example, Alexander
Hamilton cited the following moral propositions as self-evident in the
Federalist No. 37:
•
The means ought to be
proportioned to the end.
•
Every power ought to be
commensurate with its object.
•
There ought to be no
limitation of a power destined to effect a purpose which is itself incapable of
limitation.
•
A famous
claim of the self-evidence of a moral truth is in the United States Declaration
of Independence, which states, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness."; philosophically, these propositions' self-evidence is debatable.
Selected
and edited from https://en.wikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Self-evidence
** **
1842
hours. The famous claim above is the kind of thing I am talking about –
assumptions – we make them true by deciding they are true. The claims may be
somewhat true or not or even downright false but just like creating time zones
around the world and everyone abiding by the rules it becomes to be thought of
as true when it is somewhat arbitrary. I’m done for the day.
Post. - Amorella
No comments:
Post a Comment