26 February 2016

Notes - yester and today / logic, fallacies and self evident truth



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?

       It can be used in the opening conversation. Post. - Amorella


***
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