+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Community (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: Olio (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: logical fallacies (/showthread.php?tid=4731)
logical fallacies - Plenum - 04-19-2012
a little while ago, I got into the work of Jan Irvin. He is a big proponent of the Trivium - a structure of teaching the mind that goes back to the Romans and Greeks.
the Trivium consists of
* grammar
* logic
* rhetoric
and have different meanings than the ones that we know them by now. The issue of logic is quite an interesting one, as it goes to the heart of consistency and how one constructs their viewpoints in the mind.
the list of logical fallacies (or logical errors) is quite a long one, and the full list is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
the informal fallacies are interesting to look over.
Informal fallacies
Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content.[10]
Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).[11]
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore
Argument from scripture (Spider-man fallacy) - claiming that because there is some truth in a piece of text (such as a factual city or factual historical figure), that everything mentioned in the text must, by default, be "historical fact".
Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on silence of opponent, failing to give proof, based on "lack of evidence"
Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below.
Begging the question (petitio principii) – where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises[12]
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false
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.[13]
Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.[14]
Correlative-based fallacies
Suppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.[15]
Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)[16]
Ambiguous middle term – a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated[17]
Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.[18]
Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.[19]
Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole[20]
Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts[21]
False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.[22]
If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of an event's taking place.[23]
Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[24]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument
Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.[25]
Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct[26]
Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event.[27]
Historian's fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.[28] (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)
Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.[29]
Incomplete comparison – where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison
Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison
Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[30]
Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.
Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion
Petitio principii – see begging the question
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause, coincidental correlation, correlation not causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y[31]
Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)
Prosecutor's fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found
Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event
Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.[32]
Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand
Shotgun argumentation - the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them.[33]
Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
Wrong direction – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.[34]
RE: logical fallacies - Ali Quadir - 04-20-2012
It's a good idea to be aware of these logical fallacies. They've served me well in many a discussion.
Where do you want to go with this topic Plenum?
RE: logical fallacies - Plenum - 04-20-2012
I didn't know about these 'flaws' in thinking until someone pointed them out. I am in the midst of examining my own thought processes. Perhaps others might find them useful as well. But I won't presume anything
RE: logical fallacies - Patrick - 04-20-2012
Top 20 Logical Fallacies
Not only good for science-based discussions, but also great if applied to spiritual discussions.
RE: logical fallacies - Dekalb_Blues - 05-01-2012
Regarding Logical Fallacies
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Samson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
"Ahh, every time you think you weaken the nation!"
--- Moe Howard, to Curly Howard
"In order to understand ideas at least brains are needed."
--- Oswald Spengler
"Remember also an Arabian proverb which tells us that on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace."
--- Arthur Schopenhauer
❦
THE EXCELLENT LIST OF LOGICAL FALLACIES:
BUT WHICH FALLACY IS ITSELF MOST EXCELLENT?
[Found at
http://blog.geekpress.com/2006/09/excellent-list-of-logical-fallaciesad.html ]
Ad Hominem:
This is the best logical fallacy, and if you disagree with me, well, with someone like you, it's only to be expected.
Affirming the Consequent:
If it is proven that Affirming the Consequent is the best, then I will be very happy. I am feeling very happy, so obviously Affirming the Consequent is the best fallacy.
Appeal To False Authority:
Your logical fallacies aren't logical fallacies at all -- because Einstein said so. Einstein also said that this one is better.
Appeal To Emotion:
See, my mom, she had to work three jobs on account of my dad leaving and refusing to support us, and me with my elephantitis and all, all our money went to doctor's bills so I never was able to get proper schooling. So really, if you look deep down inside yourself, you'll see that my fallacy here is the best.
Appeal to Fear:
If you don't accept Appeal to Fear as the greatest fallacy, then THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON. Do you want that on your conscience, that THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON because you were a pansy who didn't really think that Appeal to Fear was worth voting for, and you wanted to vote for something else? Of course not, and neither would the people you let die because THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON.
Appeal to Flattery:
If you agree with me that Appeal to Flattery is the greatest fallacy, it shows that you are intelligent and good looking and really good in bed. And a snappy dresser
Appeal To Force:
If you don't agree that Appeal to Force is the greatest logical fallacy, I will kick your ass.
Appeal to Ignorance:
No one has been able to prove that another fallacy is better than Appeal to Ignorance, so it must be the best.
Appeal To Majority:
Most people think that this fallacy is the best, so clearly it is.
Appeal To Novelty:
The Appeal to Novelty's a new fallacy, and it blows all your crappy old fallacies out the water! All the cool kids are using it: it's OBVIOUSLY the best.
Appeal To Numbers:
Millions think that this fallacy is the best, so clearly it is.
Appeal to Pity:
If you don't agree that Appeal to Pity is the greatest fallacy, think how it will hurt the feelings of me and the others who like it!
Appeal To Tradition:
We've used Appeal to Tradition for centuries: how can it possibly be wrong?
Argumentum Ad Nauseam:
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy.
Bandwagon:
It's obvious that Bandwagon is going to win as the greatest fallacy. You wouldn't want to be one of the losers who choose something else, would you?
Begging The Question:
Circular reasoning is the best fallacy and is capable of proving anything.
Since it can prove anything, it can obviously prove the above statement.
Since it can prove the first statement, it must be true.
Therefore, circular reasoning is the best fallacy and is capable of proving anything.
Biased Sample:
I just did a poll of all the people in the "Biased Sample Fan Club" and 95% of them agree that Biased Sample the best fallacy. Obviously it's going to win.
Burden Of Proof:
Can you prove that Burden of Proof isn't the best logical fallacy?
Complex Question:
Have you stopped beating your wife and saying Complex Question isn't the best fallacy?
Composition:
Each of the other fallacies suck. The Fallacy of Composition is therefore better than the whole lot of them combined.
Denying the Antecedent:
If Denying the Antecedent were not the best fallacy, then I would be sad. I am actually in quite a good mood right now, so obviously Denying the Antecedent is the best.
Division:
This is the best list of fallacies. It follows that there could be no better description of the Fallacy of Division than this.
Equivocation:
The best fallacy is on this list.
Equivocation is on this list.
Therefore, the best fallacy is equivocation.
Fallacy Fallacy:
Some have argued that the Fallacy Fallacy couldn't be the best fallacy because some arguments for it being the best fallacy are themselves fallacious. Clearly, this is a fallacious argument, from which we can only conclude that the Fallacy Fallacy is indeed the best fallacy.
False Analogy:
Just as the jelly donut is the best donut, so too is False Analogy the best fallacy.
False Dilemma:
I've found that either you think False Dilemma is the best fallacy, or you're a terrorist.
False Premise:
All of the other fallacies are decent, but clearly not the best as they didn't come from my incredibly large and sexy brain.
Gambler's Fallacy:
In all the previous talks about this subject, Gambler's Fallacy lost, so I just know the Gambler's Fallacy is going to win this time because it's the Gambler's Fallacy's turn to win!
Guilt By Association:
You know who else preferred those other logical fallacies?
[*insert pictures of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot here*]
Hypostatization (personification):
Go, Hypostatization Fallacy, you can do it! If you just try hard enough you can be the best fallacy there is! Oh come on now, don't look at me like that.
Non Sequitur:
Non Sequitur is the best fallacy because none of my meals so far today have involved asparagus.
Phallic Fallacy
My argument's bigger in scope, harder-headed in rationality, and longer-lasting -- more upstanding in every way than yours -- as I relentlessly probe for the inevitable chink in even the most seemingly impregnable logical matrix.
Post Hoc/False Cause:
Since I've started presuming that correlation equals causation, violent crime has gone down 54%.
Red Herring:
They say that to prove your fallacy is the best requires extraordinary evidence, because it's an extraordinary claim. Well, I'd like to note that "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" is itself an extraordinary claim.
Relativism:
Well maybe all those other fallacies are the best for you, but to me, the relativist fallacy is the greatest logical fallacy ever.
Slippery Slope:
If you don't like Slippery Slope arguments, you will do poorly in class, drop out of school, commit crimes, go to prison, and die of AIDS.
Special Pleading:
I know that everyone is posting about their favorite fallacies, but Special Pleading is out-and-out the best, so it should just win with no contest.
Straw Man Argument:
Apparently you think the Straw Man Argument is bad because you have something against the Wizard of Oz. Well, you know what? It doesn't have anything to do with the Wizard of Oz! Therefore, the Straw Man Argument must be the best fallacy.
Use/Mention:
If I mention the idea that "the use/mention fallacy is the best fallacy" then the use/mention fallacy is the best fallacy.
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
MORE EXCELLENT LOGICAL FALLACIES, YET
[Found at http://funnyclassnotes.blogspot.com/2007/10/logical-fallacies.html ]
No doubt about it. Knowing the names of logical fallacies makes us seem smarter and sparkles up our repartee. Not content to just use the old school fallacies, we went to the FCN Lab and discovered a healthy passel of new ones. We publish our results here for the benefit of the general intellectual community....
Learn them well, then incorporate them in your everyday conversations.
1) Plurium Stupidium: Fallacy of Much Stupidity. Consists of several stupid comments improperly grouped into one. Often, a single refutation is expected against all the nonsense.
Examples:
"Gas prices are so low today that I think I'll fill every container in my house to make my own strategic oil reserve by stockpiling all the gas in that nook next to the fireplace."
"We should let women rule the world because they drive cars better."
"I've decided to spend the rest of my life sitting right here and eating this cheese."
2) Petitio Kapowio: Fallacy of Begging to get Socked in the Nose. Consists of defending a position in a really irritating way, such that the opponent has no choice but to point out the logical error in a very physical and satisfying fashion.
Examples:
"Bring it, punk."
"Well, I'm right, and that's just how it is."
"Why are you REALLY arguing with me? Is it because you're scared?"
3) Retardio Terminorum: Fallacy of Retarded Terms. Consists of a categorical syllogism that has retarded terms.
Examples:
Major Premise: That's lame.
Minor Premise: Lame is pathetic.
Conclusion: You're lame.
Major Premise: White is the new black.
Minor Premise: Silver is the new gold.
Conclusion: I'll buy that one.
Major Premise: Nothing is too good for the king.
Minor Premise: A bowl of oatmeal is better than nothing.
Conclusion: A bowl of oatmeal is too good for the king.
4) Consensus Minoritum: Appeal to Minority. The inverse of Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum.). Consists of an argument supported by its own lack of support.
Examples:
"That's what they all say. I can't believe you fell for it, too."
"The court ruled 8-1. The dissenting opinion, however, has some very choice arguments in support of my position."
"We'll never win this election unless we can befriend minorities."
5) Argumentum Dementum: Fallacy of Arguing from a Position or State of Dementia. Consists of arguments which accidentally make no sense and are not the fault of the arguments themselves. Argumentum Dementum is a very hard fallacy to spot.
Examples:
Major Premise: All cats are animals.
Minor Premise: Ginger is an animal.
Conclusion: Teeheehee!
"Due to my incredible good looks, remarkable intelligence, contagious charisma, discriminating good taste, and skill with a joystick, I will take over the world at this time tomorrow, and anyone who wants to stop me can ... teeheehee!"
A = B
B = C
Therefore, A = Teeheehee!
6) Terminorum Confusium: Fallacy of Confusing Terms. Consists of arguments expressed in confusing ways. This often involves mathematical notation. It is designed to block the opponent from effective response.
Examples:
If no birds are dogs, no dogs can fly, no birds can swim, some fish can fly, no dogs are fish, some dogs can swim, no fish are birds, and all fish can swim, then all birds can fly.
A = B
B ⊄ C
B ⊄ D
D ⊂ either B or C
C ≠ A
B ⇒ A ⇒ C
D = B ≡ C ≠ D
B ¬ C
Therefore, A ∀ B := C ∃! D.
If aggregate assessment driven system development can only be optimized under synergistic group-based outcome models, then growing functionalities on core competencies will only recontextualize pre-existing proactive relationships rather than enhancing holistic cross-circular networks.
7) Refutatum ad Mortem: Fallacy of Arguing a Point to the Death. Consists of an argument issued from the mouth of one who has been arguing so long he no longer knows what he is saying.
Examples:
"I'm not sure what you just said because my ears are ringing so loud from all the caffeine, but I'm sure it's wrong."
"Just oooooooooooooooooooone more jelly donut. Then I'll stop. This time I mean it. I'm really going to stop."
"Medicare, Medicaid, and the environment ... Medicare, Medicaid, and the environment ... Medicare, Medicaid, and the environment ..."
8) Ipse Dimwit: Fallacy of Appealing to a Dimwit. A subset of Argument from Authority; occurs when the cited authority is a dimwit.
Examples:
"Homer Simpson once said: 'Bart, with $10,000, we'd be millionaires! We could buy all kinds of useful things like ... love!'"
"Homer Simpson once called beer the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems."
"Homer Simpson once said that weaseling is what separates us from the animals. Except the weasel."
9) Argumentum ad Baculum Squidium Magnus: Fallacy of Fear of Giant Squid. Consists of an emotional appeal involving a giant squid; this fallacy typically involves said squid falling from the sky. Also known as Secundum Squidium.
Examples:
"I would love to get a driver's license, but I don't want to risk having a giant squid fall on me in the middle of the test."
"You're so obssessed with people starving in Africa. What about those poor people in Quebec? Why, a giant squid could gobble them up at any moment!"
Major Premise: All cows eat grass.
Minor Premise: Betsy is a cow.
Conclusion: However, due to the giant squid, Betsy actually does not eat grass.
10) The Stupid Pants Fallacy. Consists of an argument in which substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to one that is stupid pants. Such arguments often neglect to consider the high prevalence of stupid pants entities.
Examples:
Fact 1: I know who X is.
Fact 2: X is stupid pants.
Fact 3: I do not know who Y is.
Conclusion: Y is not stupid pants.
"My cousin James lives in Iowa. He isn't stupid pants. So I'm going to move to Iowa, where the stupid pants concentration is lower."
If Bob is stupid pants, then Bill is stupid pants. If Bill is stupid pants, then Bob is stupid pants. Bob is not stupid pants. Therefore, Bill is not stupid pants.
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
YOU KNOW MY NAME (LOOK UP THE NUMBER); OR,
SEE, I RUN RINGS AROUND YOU LOGICALLY; OR,
THIRTY-EIGHT WAYS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT--
PER FAS ET NEFAS ["THROUGH RIGHT AND WRONG"] :-)
From Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Controversy:
1. Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.
The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it.
The more restricted and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to defend.
2. Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his argument.
Example: Person A says, "You do not understand the mysteries of Kant's philosophy."
Person B replies, "Oh, if it's mysteries you're talking about, I'll have nothing to do with them."
3. Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing.
Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it.
Attack something different than what was asserted.
4. Hide your conclusion from your opponent until the end.
Mingle your premises here and there in your talk.
Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order.
By this circuitous route you conceal your goal until you have reached all the admissions necessary to reach your goal.
5. Use your opponent's beliefs against him.
If your opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.
Example, if the opponent is a member of an organization or a religious sect to which you do not belong, you may employ the declared opinions of this group against the opponent.
[& so on; moar at link]
"As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual advantage, in order to correct one’s thoughts and awaken new views. But in learning and in mental power both disputants must be tolerably equal. If one of them lacks learning, he will fail to understand the other, as he is not on the same level with his antagonist. If he lacks mental power, he will be embittered, and led into dishonest tricks, and end by being rude.
The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topica: not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him. From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for every one is at liberty to be a fool — desipere est jus gentium. Remember what Voltaire says: La paix vaut encore mieux que la vérité ["Peace is better than the truth"]. Remember also an Arabian proverb which tells us that on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace."
--- Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy, XXXVIII
❦
==========
I wish to thank Krystal, professional exotic dancer, website designer, programmer, and logician (who taught me about the art of wielding cut-and-pasties for the greater glory of the One [even when it appears as Two]) for her help and inspiration in assembling this post and otherwise improving various shining hours.
How doth the little busy bee
Improve each shining hour,
And gather honey all the day
From every opening flower!
--- Isaac Watts, "Against Idleness and Mischief", from Divine Songs for Children (1751)
RE: logical fallacies - DMCubic - 05-19-2012
Dekalb_Blues: You win the Internet.
RE: logical fallacies - drifting pages - 05-19-2012
Replace fallacy with bias and you get the nature of experience ? We are all an impossible dream. Nothing logical about it, it is contextual and artificial.
But otherwise there would be only ONE so this is more interesting...
RE: logical fallacies - Tenet Nosce - 05-20-2012
Bias is the tendency to view things in a certain way, or from a particular point of view or perspective.
Logical fallacy is attempting to argue for a particular view using tactics which have no intrinsic merit, other than to increase one's chances of "winning" an argument by default through your opponent's failure to perceive the fallacy (or fallacies) at play. The deployment of logical fallacy is both deceptive and manipulative. Not only to one's opponent, but also to oneself, if one accepts their own fallacious arguments as "clever", for example. It also, by the way, dramatically weakens your position to any onlookers who are aware of what is really going on.
Granted, some people "know not what they do" and aren't consciously employing logical fallacy. Indeed in many, if not most, cases the use of logical fallacy in an argument is simply a reflection of one's own flawed internal thought processes. But ignorance of one's own flawed thought processes does not make them any less deceptive and manipulative.
After a certain point, and especially if one is heavily engaged in argumentation (such as occurs on Internet forums), it becomes a responsibility of those involved to take the time to educate themselves on logical fallacy, and to put forth best effort to minimize the deployment of these in the course of argumentation.
At the end of the day, if a particular viewpoint is -indeed- the superior one, then it can and should be argued for without the deployment of logical fallacy. The truth stands quite solidly on its own two feet, and does not need to be propped up with prosthetic limbs.
Point being- one can certainly attend to the expression of their biases without the need to resort to logical fallacy. And in my humble opinion, if one is unwilling to take 30 minutes out of their life to learn about logical fallacies, they really have no business spending hours upon hours debating in Internet forums. Unless, of course, one is purposely trying to be a troll.
Minimizing logical fallacy is not only good for your argumentative skills- it is good for your soul. Think about it. Would you suppose that highly evolved beings- such as 5D or 6D entities- would permit logical fallacies to run rampant within their own internal thought processes, and in their societies?
But even back here in good ol' 3D, I can only imagine how much less war and strife would exist if people learned how to speak their minds in a logically sound fashion. Not to mention how much time and money would be saved which could be put to a more constructive use. For example, it would greatly curb the amount of chicanery which occurs around political debates and elections. Incidentally, as so many politicians are also attorneys they should already be well aware of what logical fallacies are, and how to avoid using them.
Oh- and one more thing- the use of sound logic does not mean that one must sacrifice emotion. The two were meant to be joined together.
RE: logical fallacies - BrownEye - 05-20-2012
Quote:The truth stands quite solidly on its own two feet, and does not need to be propped up with prosthetic limbs.Logical fallacy to say anything stands up against consensus reality.
Quote:4. Hide your conclusion from your opponent until the end.I must say this is awesome LoL!
Mingle your premises here and there in your talk.
Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order.
By this circuitous route you conceal your goal until you have reached all the admissions necessary to reach your goal.
RE: logical fallacies - Shin'Ar - 05-20-2012
defeat logical fallacies with illogical altruisms.
"The half truth is the most dangerous form of lie because it can be defended in part by incontestable logic." - Manly P. Hall
RE: logical fallacies - Tenet Nosce - 05-20-2012
(05-20-2012, 02:53 AM)Pickle Wrote:Quote:The truth stands quite solidly on its own two feet, and does not need to be propped up with prosthetic limbs.Logical fallacy to say anything stands up against consensus reality.
Quote:4. Hide your conclusion from your opponent until the end.I must say this is awesome LoL!
Mingle your premises here and there in your talk.
Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order.
By this circuitous route you conceal your goal until you have reached all the admissions necessary to reach your goal.
Soooo.. would you agree that consensus reality is little more than a mass delusion?
(05-20-2012, 08:29 AM)ShinAr Wrote: defeat logical fallacies with illogical altruisms.
"The half truth is the most dangerous form of lie because it can be defended in part by incontestable logic." - Manly P. Hall
I wish I could half like your post!
What is an "illogical altruism"?Also, I failed to mention one of the most salient points in relation to this. I'm fairly sure that the deployment of logical fallacies is one of the cornerstone tactics of STS to deceive and manipulate humanity into accepting enslavement. Generally under the aegis of some proposed law or social program that appears, on the surface, to be for the greater good of all. From classrooms to the teevee, from sportscasting to weekly sermons- people are groomed at every turn to accept logical fallacies as valid thought processes.
Then... when the latest cog in the perpetual enslavement wheel is launched, people are primed and ready to accept it. And even when those few who see through the manipulation speak up, they are invariably turned on by the masses as rabid dogs.
So, the difference here between "STO" and "STS" would be that "STO" often deploys logical fallacy because they simply don't know any better, and are themselves hoodwinked to a degree. "STS" uses logical fallacy knowing full well what they are doing, and with a clear intent to deceive and manipulate.
Therefore, if one is interested in maximizing "positive polarization" and minimizing "negative manipulation", it would again behoove oneself to get educated on logical fallacy.
RE: logical fallacies - Shin'Ar - 05-20-2012
I will acknowledge your like as a half like out of respect for you Tenet, lol.
I t just seemed to me that it would be the exact opposite of logical fallacy.
RE: logical fallacies - Monica - 05-20-2012
The problem is that the very people who could benefit from getting educated about logic, probably won't read a 'wall of text.' The same lack of logical thinking often (though not necessarily) also precludes the ability to process large chunks of literary data.
Conversely, some are so locked into what they think is logical thinking, that they miss the subtleties and nuances of right brain perception.
And, in both cases, biases prevail.
Case in point: I had a co-worker in IT (Information Technology) who was a genius when it came to computer programming and statistical analysis. But try getting into a discussion about religion and his biases came out full force. This 'brilliant logical thinker' was bigoted (he said quote "all Iraqis should be killed since they're all going to hell anyway" endquote) and he believe everything in the Bible literally, all the way down to the talking snake. It was impossible to discuss anything logically with him since he was so locked into the religious mentality.
This shows that logically-minded people can be selectively logical, and when their areas of bias are discussed, they can be even harder to deal with, because their biases might not be as blatantly on display, and in their minds, they truly think they're being logical. They might not even be aware that they have biases at all.
What I'm saying is that the logical process is very nice, but only if it's followed, and the likelihood of it being followed is very slim, even among those who fancy themselves logically-minded. In fact, they might even fight even more fiercely for their biases, because they're in denial about having any blind spots and thus perceive themselves as being logical.
My co-worker knew he had good logic skills, because of his job. So it was even harder for him to recognize his biases, than for someone who knows they lack logic skills altogether.
RE: logical fallacies - Tenet Nosce - 05-20-2012
(05-20-2012, 02:22 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: The problem is that the very people who could benefit from getting educated about logic, probably won't read a 'wall of text.' The same lack of logical thinking often (though not necessarily) also precludes the ability to process large chunks of literary data.
Tru dat. Although many such folks seem to have no issue writing a 'wall of text' which they (ostensibly) are expecting others to read. That one has always been curious to me.
Quote:Conversely, some are so locked into what they think is logical thinking, that they miss the subtleties and nuances of right brain perception.
Fo sho. Right brain perception is just as valid as left brain perception. Though I have difficulty understanding why it isn't patently obvious to those who overly rely on either mode, that to balance and combine the two would be a very wise thing to do. The notion that the intellect and the intuition are somehow mutually exclusive seems neither logical nor intuitive to me.
Incidentally, I have found that laying out the swords and cups of the minor arcana of the Rider-Waite tarot in two rows in numerical order offers an excellent pictorial depiction of the process of marriage of the intellect and emotion. Particularly useful for those who find words bothersome.
Quote:Case in point: I had a co-worker in IT (Information Technology) who was a genius when it came to computer programming and statistical analysis. But try getting into a discussion about religion and his biases came out full force. This 'brilliant logical thinker' was bigoted (he said quote "all Iraqis should be killed since they're all going to hell anyway" endquote) and he believe everything in the Bible literally, all the way down to the talking snake. It was impossible to discuss anything logically with him since he was so locked into the religious mentality.
What a toolbag! I wonder: did you ever try to point out the logical inconsistencies of his religious beliefs? If so, what was his response?
Also- I wonder how it is that when it comes to God/religion it is so easy for people to throw logic out the window. At the very least, God is logical, otherwise where would logic have come from? Here is my "favorite" response when the logical consistency of a religious belief is pointed out: "God works in mysterious ways!" Yes, my friend, and you are one of them!
From a very young age, my reading of the depictions of Yahweh/the "LORD" in the Bible made it very clear to me that this was no "God" I wanted to follow or worship.
Quote:This shows that logically-minded people can be selectively logical, and when their areas of bias are discussed, they can be even harder to deal with, because their biases might not be as blatantly on display, and in their minds, they truly think they're being logical. They might not even be aware that they have biases at all.
Definitely. Although one can be heavily biased, and still be logical.
Quote:What I'm saying is that the logical process is very nice, but only if it's followed, and the likelihood of it being followed is very slim, even among those who fancy themselves logically-minded. In fact, they might even fight even more fiercely for their biases, because they're in denial about having any blind spots and thus perceive themselves as being logical.
No doubt. Funny how that works out.
RE: logical fallacies - Monica - 05-20-2012
(05-20-2012, 03:34 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Tru dat. Although many such folks seem to have no issue writing a 'wall of text' which they (ostensibly) are expecting others to read. That one has always been curious to me.
Why not? Why shouldn't 'they' (er, rather, we, since I am one of those who does that...here on a discussion forum where the purpose is to discuss) do that if they wish?
If they (we) have any expectations that anyone would actually - gasp - read what was so lovingly and conscientiously (or not) written, here on a forum whose purpose it is to discuss...then...well, that's what they (we) get for having such ridiculously silly expectations!
(05-20-2012, 03:34 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Though I have difficulty understanding why it isn't patently obvious to those who overly rely on either mode, that to balance and combine the two would be a very wise thing to do.
Realizing that, and actually doing it, are 2 different things.
(05-20-2012, 03:34 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: What a toolbag! I wonder: did you ever try to point out the logical inconsistencies of his religious beliefs?
Oh gosh, no! Why would I do that?
(05-20-2012, 03:34 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: From a very young age, my reading of the depictions of Yahweh/the "LORD" in the Bible made it very clear to me that this was no "God" I wanted to follow or worship.
You figured it out a lot sooner than I did! But then, since I was Catholic I didn't actually read the whole old testament until I was around 21. Then it still took me a couple of years to figure it out!
(05-20-2012, 03:34 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Definitely. Although one can be heavily biased, and still be logical.
Biases usually fall apart under the magnifying glass of logic. That is, if the logic is received and comprehended, which it usually isn't. So I would say it's more like: one can be heavily biased, and still think they're logical.
RE: logical fallacies - Tenet Nosce - 05-20-2012
(05-20-2012, 05:10 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: Why not? Why shouldn't 'they' (er, rather, we, since I am one of those who does that...here on a discussion forum where the purpose is to discuss) do that if they wish?
If they (we) have any expectations that anyone would actually - gasp - read what was so lovingly and conscientiously (or not) written, here on a forum whose purpose it is to discuss...then...well, that's what they (we) get for having such ridiculously silly expectations!
LOL... I am myself a king of "Text Walls"!
What I refer to is people who write text walls wanting others to read them, but who won't take the time to read the text walls of others. Not that I read every text wall, either! I will also admit, sometimes I just write for my own enjoyment, and couldn't care less whether others read it or not. Quote:Realizing that, and actually doing it, are 2 different things.
Oh, yeah. Doing it is tough business. But realizing it shouldn't be. I long for the days when it will be generally assumed that, when faced with two seemingly "opposing" views or forces, the ultimate goal is to balance and unify them. Just that simple acknowledgement, in and of itself, would do so much to improve our quality of life, in my opinion. So many of us still seem to think that the "point" of life is to choose between one extreme viewpoint over another, and then to defend that extreme even unto the death!
Again, harder said than done. But it seems really obvious to me that BOTH/AND thinking trumps EITHER/OR thinking. But clearly, it isn't obvious to others, and I'm sure many people would heartily disagree with my point of view.
Quote:Oh gosh, no! Why would I do that?
To see how he responded.
Quote:You figured it out a lot sooner than I did! But then, since I was Catholic I didn't actually read the whole old testament until I was around 21. Then it still took me a couple of years to figure it out!
I was raised Catholic, too, but not in a very strict sense. I guess I was "lucky" in that when I had questions that my parents couldn't answer, I was directed to go look for myself. It still took me many years to be confident in the notion that yes, in fact, all these people around me really don't have much of a clue what they are talking about. After all, I was a kid! The adults were supposed to be the ones guiding me, right?
Quote:Biases usually fall apart under the magnifying glass of logic. That is, if the logic is received and comprehended, which it usually isn't. So I would say it's more like: one can be heavily biased, and still think they're logical.
Yeah, I can see what you mean. It stands to reason that a moderate view would be more logical than an absolutist, or extreme view. Of course, when interacting with many people, simply the act of engaging them takes one outside the realm of reason and logic.
RE: logical fallacies - Monica - 05-20-2012
(05-20-2012, 05:48 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: LOL... I am myself a king of "Text Walls"!
Ahem! Woe be to whoever gets in the middle of you and me! Someone with a text phobia might want to avoid the Tenet-Monica dialogs!
(05-20-2012, 05:48 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: What I mean to say is people who write text walls wanting others to read them, but who won't take the time to read the text walls of others.
Oh, well in that case, I agree. That's kinda rude, to reply to the other person without having read what they said. On second thought, no not kinda, but very rude!
(05-20-2012, 05:48 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Not that I read every text wall, either! I will also admit, sometimes I just write for my own enjoyment, and couldn't care less whether others read it or not.
Nothing wrong with that! Writing is fun. (To us writers anyway!) As long as one is careful to not be misleading; ie. implying that they have read the other person's comments when they haven't.
(05-20-2012, 05:48 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: But realizing it shouldn't be.
I wonder about that. Maybe 'doing it' is actually easy, when true realization has occurred. Maybe what we think is realization, isn't really realization after all.
(05-20-2012, 05:48 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: I long for the days when it will be generally assumed that, when faced with two seemingly "opposing" views or forces, the ultimate goal is to balance and unify them.
Or...how about this: Create a 3rd possibility.
That is the nature of reconciling paradox! Creation.
(05-20-2012, 05:48 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: So many of us still seem to think that the "point" of life is to choose between one extreme viewpoint over another, and then to defend that extreme even unto the death!
Again, harder said than done. But it seems really obvious to me that BOTH/AND thinking trumps EITHER/OR thinking. But clearly, it isn't obvious to others, and I'm sure many people would heartily disagree with my point of view.
I agree. But I would take it a step further and offer the option of both disagreeing heartily and reconciling disagreement. That is the paradox.
In other words, instead of
BOTH/AND vs EITHER/OR
how about
BOTH/AND as the entity on one side of the /, with EITHER/OR as the entity on the other.
(05-20-2012, 05:48 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: To see how he responded.
He was a coworker, not an internet forum buddy. He didn't agree to any sort of discussion or debate. So it wasn't my place to question his religious beliefs.
I did, however, call him on his bigotry. I will never stay silent in the presence of bigotry! It didn't do any good, though, because his religious beliefs defined his bigotry. There was no way to access his bigotry without tearing down his religious beliefs, and I didn't have the right to do that.
(05-20-2012, 05:48 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: I was raised Catholic, too
What I meant was that Catholics don't read the bible like the evangelicals do. The priest just read a couple of passages (1 from the NT and 1 or 2 from the OT) at each mass, and that was the extent of our bible education.
The evangelicals, in contrast, really study their bibles.
So I didn't actually read the bible from start to finish until I got involved with the evangelicals, and went to their bible study. Of course, they explained away all the horrors in the OT quite conveniently. But later, in the privacy of my own home, with dog-eared, highlighted amplified bible in hand, a gnawing sense of horror began to grow inside me, until finally I did what I'd been told to never do...I did the unthinkable!!
I questioned the presupposition that all of the bible was from God.
And my conclusion was so radical, so blasphemous, so scary, that it still took me several years to process it.
(05-20-2012, 05:48 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: It still took me many years to be confident in the notion that yes, in fact, all these people around me really don't have much of a clue what they are talking about. After all, I was a kid! The adults were supposed to be the ones guiding me, right?
Did you go to Catholic school? Catechism class? Did your family pray the rosary every night?
(05-20-2012, 05:48 PM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Yeah, I can see what you mean. In the end, a moderate view would seem to also be the most logical.
Why do you say that? That seems rather arbitrary to me. (See, I can't help but question your logic! haha) On what logical premise has it been determined that the middle ground is always the best one or the most logical one?
Further, on what criteria is the definition of 'moderate view' defined? And, who gets to decide what that criteria is?
Sometimes, it isn't a matter of the person lacking logic skills. Both sides of the debate might be presented with flawless logic, but just appear illogical to the other side. Why? Because the presupposition is different.
They try to account for that. Presuppositions are established. But I contend that, in a spiritual or philosophical discussion, in which unknown biases lie sleeping beneath the surface of consciousness, presuppositions abound, and in fact are the norm, invisible and undetected though they may be.
RE: logical fallacies - Patrick - 05-20-2012
Here's a wall of text.
![[Image: shikeiki-wall-of-text.jpg]](http://bignanime.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/shikeiki-wall-of-text.jpg)
RE: logical fallacies - Monica - 05-20-2012
(05-01-2012, 08:35 PM)Dekalb_Blues Wrote: THE EXCELLENT LIST OF LOGICAL FALLACIES:
BUT WHICH FALLACY IS ITSELF MOST EXCELLENT?
That list really is most excellent! The best list ever!
RE: logical fallacies - Tenet Nosce - 05-21-2012
(05-20-2012, 06:34 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: Ahem! Woe be to whoever gets in the middle of you and me! Someone with a text phobia might want to avoid the Tenet-Monica dialogs!
LOL. That made me wonder if, in some far-off reality, there are two people channeling aspects of our Higher Selves, and writing a book about it!
Quote:I wonder about that. Maybe 'doing it' is actually easy, when true realization has occurred. Maybe what we think is realization, isn't really realization after all.
Could be. An interesting thought!
Quote:Or...how about this: Create a 3rd possibility.
That is the nature of reconciling paradox! Creation.
Yes!
Quote:BOTH/AND as the entity on one side of the /, with EITHER/OR as the entity on the other.
The degree to which reading that sentence made my brain hurt, is a sure sign it would be a good idea for me to contemplate it!
Quote:He was a coworker, not an internet forum buddy. He didn't agree to any sort of discussion or debate. So it wasn't my place to question his religious beliefs.
Oh, I thought you had said he was spouting off about his religious beliefs or something.
Quote:I did, however, call him on his bigotry. I will never stay silent in the presence of bigotry! It didn't do any good, though, because his religious beliefs defined his bigotry. There was no way to access his bigotry without tearing down his religious beliefs, and I didn't have the right to do that.
Hmm. That's an interesting take. In my own view, I would feel that if somebody feels they have the right to spew bigotry, that gives me the right to critique the sponsoring beliefs. I will admit it really grinds my gears when people use their religion as a shield... especially when coming out at people with prejudice, racism and bigotry. Oh, so you get to tell me this is what the "LORD your GOD" says, but then retreat behind your shield and act as if I can't come back at you because nobody is "allowed" to criticize another person's religious beliefs? Why should that be? Why should said person have the "right" to throw their religion in other people's faces, but those people not have the "right" to respond? Sounds like there is a logical fallacy or two lurking behind that kind of mentality to me!
It kind of reminds me of back when I used to teach weight loss classes and people tried to use their culture as a shield for their eating habits. "Well I am Indian and we eat a lot of rice!" or "I am Middle Eastern and we have a big feast with our families every weekend!"... um yeah? So what? One could say "I am American and we eat lots of burgers and fries!" Do you want to lose weight, or not?
Point being... I don't think religion or culture should function as an "impenetrable shield" against criticism of behaviors which are harmful or disrespectful to others. It is one of those areas where I think "political correctness" goes too far and is used too often as a convenient excuse for deplorable behavior.
Quote:The evangelicals, in contrast, really study their bibles.
True. I would even take that one a step further in that the intent study of the bible under the premise that it is all the literal "Word of God" really does one in as far as accepting logical fallacies are concerned.
I have to admit, I really question the ability of humanity to create a better world when all this fallacious thinking is still the way of the majority. Then again- I don't get the feeling that it is necessary to shore up one's thought processes to any large degree in order to graduate to fourth density. Now fifth- I would say it is a critical requirement.
Quote:I questioned the presupposition that all of the bible was from God.
Ah! Yes- that may be a key difference between our respective upbrinings. The "bible as word of god" aspect wasn't really pounded into my head all that much.
Quote:And my conclusion was so radical, so blasphemous, so scary, that it still took me several years to process it.
For my part, I wasn't scared... but ANGRY! Oh, so pissed. I guess in some ways I am still processing that.
Quote:Did you go to Catholic school? Catechism class? Did your family pray the rosary every night?
I went to catechism class, but I pitched such a fit about it that it wasn't a regular thing. Eventually my mom just gave up. As for prayer, no we didn't do much family prayer, although if I were feeling worried or anxious about something, my mom would suggest that I say the rosary before bedtime. But in practice, it had the sort of opposite effect on me- while one part of my mind was engaged saying the prayers, another part was watching with incredulity as to why/how God would want me to pray in this way. I thought- wouldn't it be better to just have a conversation, or something?
Quote:Why do you say that? That seems rather arbitrary to me. (See, I can't help but question your logic! haha) On what logical premise has it been determined that the middle ground is always the best one or the most logical one?
LOL! Well at first I said that one could be heavily biased, yet still be logical. Then you refuted my point, and I was attempting to acknowledge your counterpoint as valid.
Quote:Further, on what criteria is the definition of 'moderate view' defined? And, who gets to decide what that criteria is?
Moderate would be the the view which acknowledges some validity to all sides of an argument. But- having been a "moderator" that would make you the expert! What do you think it means?
Quote:Sometimes, it isn't a matter of the person lacking logic skills. Both sides of the debate might be presented with flawless logic, but just appear illogical to the other side. Why? Because the presupposition is different.
Yes, that is true. In which case I would attempt to look at the two presuppositions and see if there is a third "higher" supposition which includes both of them. I imagine if this process were carried out long enough, it would eventually lead to the supposition that "All is One".
Quote:They try to account for that. Presuppositions are established. But I contend that, in a spiritual or philosophical discussion, in which unknown biases lie sleeping beneath the surface of consciousness, presuppositions abound, and in fact are the norm, invisible and undetected though they may be.
No doubt about that. Though personally, I would question the wisdom of engaging in a debate without having some awareness of one's own suppositions.
RE: logical fallacies - Monica - 05-21-2012
Caution! Wall of text ahead!
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: LOL. That made me wonder if, in some far-off reality, there are two people channeling aspects of our Higher Selves, and writing a book about it!
Now there's a thought!
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: The degree to which reading that sentence made my brain hurt, is a sure sign it would be a good idea for me to contemplate it!
:idea:
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Oh, I thought you had said he was spouting off about his religious beliefs or something.
Well he was. Typical around here.
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Hmm. That's an interesting take. In my own view, I would feel that if somebody feels they have the right to spew bigotry, that gives me the right to critique the sponsoring beliefs. I will admit it really grinds my gears when people use their religion as a shield... especially when coming out at people with prejudice, racism and bigotry. Oh, so you get to tell me this is what the "LORD your GOD" says, but then retreat behind your shield and act as if I can't come back at you because nobody is "allowed" to criticize another person's religious beliefs? Why should that be? Why should said person have the "right" to throw their religion in other people's faces, but those people not have the "right" to respond? Sounds like there is a logical fallacy or two lurking behind that kind of mentality to me!
You're right. I agree totally! Were this to happen today, I would surely speak up. This was many years ago, and I was in a disadvantageous position because he was my supervisor. So I had to eat some s***.
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: It kind of reminds me of back when I used to teach weight loss classes and people tried to use their culture as a shield for their eating habits. "Well I am Indian and we eat a lot of rice!" or "I am Middle Eastern and we have a big feast with our families every weekend!"... um yeah? So what? One could say "I am American and we eat lots of burgers and fries!" Do you want to lose weight, or not?
Haha, that would be so funny to say "we eat lots of burgers" Yes, exactly!
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Point being... I don't think religion or culture should function as an "impenetrable shield" against criticism of behaviors which are harmful or disrespectful to others. It is one of those areas where I think "political correctness" goes too far and is used too often as a convenient excuse for deplorable behavior.
This is an area in which you and I have had 100% agreement.
The difficulty is, however, in discerning at what point do we really want to get into it with them. ("pick your battles") And, on which basis. For example, I feel the same way about religion as you do, but I also feel the same way about the meat issue, whereas you don't feel the same way on that particular issue.
(NOT going down that road in this thread...just using it as an obvious example of where you and I might disagree as to application of the idea you just expressed and which I agree with in concept but maybe not always in application.)
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: True. I would even take that one a step further in that the intent study of the bible under the premise that it is all the literal "Word of God" really does one in as far as accepting logical fallacies are concerned.
Oh yes! Much more so than with the Catholics, who accept that it isn't all literal but some is allegorical. It's much easier to discuss something with someone who is somewhat reasonable (despite having their own strong biases) than someone who believes something 100% with no room to ever question it at all.
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: I have to admit, I really question the ability of humanity to create a better world when all this fallacious thinking is still the way of the majority.
I question that too.
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Then again- I don't get the feeling that it is necessary to shore up one's thought processes to any large degree in order to graduate to fourth density.
Apparently not, or Ra would have mentioned it, since they were directly asked about the requirements for graduation to 4D. Logical thinking wasn't one of them.
I even wonder if logical thinking might get in the way for those just beginning to learn about love. Here's why I wonder that:
As we've seen here on this forum, sometimes having a lot of information might actually get in the way of compassion, because it's easy to just say "oh that's their karma...who am I to interfere?" or "well I wouldn't stop someone like Hitler because who am I to say he's wrong?"
Political correctness run amok!
Whereas, those in organized religions, although their thinking is very skewed in some ways, at least they are being told by their elders to love others and have compassion...the basics. They might not be ready for advanced teachings about 5D wisdom etc. or even stuff like reincarnation, because it might even get in the way of learning the basics.
The problem of course is that they are also taught that they are elite, the 'chosen by God' people, the 'saved' people and that obviously gets in the way of compassion. What I do frequently say to these people is: How can you truly have compassion for someone you think is doomed to hell anyway? and how could you truly have compassion for someone that God has already given up on and condemned? If even God thinks there's no hope for that person because they are too stubborn to switch their beliefs to the 'correct' religion then why should we even bother? That is what I tell them, because I think their elitism is very dangerous and even evil.
So it's a mixed bag.
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Now fifth- I would say it is a critical requirement.
Agreed. Which makes me wonder whether any of us can truly know which density we're from. It seems that if one is from, say, 5D or 6D, then critical thinking would be sort of a given. Do ya think? Or do you think maybe that ability got veiled for some reason?
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Ah! Yes- that may be a key difference between our respective upbrinings. The "bible as word of god" aspect wasn't really pounded into my head all that much.
Actually, it wasn't for me either, although the idea of Christianity being the 'one true religion' was quite programmed in my thinking The Catholics don't focus on the bible that much (which is what the evangelicals like to point out when building their case that Catholics "aren't real Christians but actually a cult").
But I did a 3-year stint as a born-again Christian, so that's where it got hammered in. Not totally though; I was able to break free of it! yea!
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: For my part, I wasn't scared... but ANGRY! Oh, so pissed. I guess in some ways I am still processing that.
Oh yes, I can relate!
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: I went to catechism class, but I pitched such a fit about it that it wasn't a regular thing. Eventually my mom just gave up. As for prayer, no we didn't do much family prayer, although if I were feeling worried or anxious about something, my mom would suggest that I say the rosary before bedtime. But in practice, it had the sort of opposite effect on me- while one part of my mind was engaged saying the prayers, another part was watching with incredulity as to why/how God would want me to pray in this way. I thought- wouldn't it be better to just have a conversation, or something?
Very similar to my experience, except that my parents were much more hardcore. But my questioning was similar to yours.
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: LOL! Well at first I said that one could be heavily biased, yet still be logical. Then you refuted my point, and I was attempting to acknowledge your counterpoint as valid.
...which I then questioned. Isn't this fun?
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Moderate would be the the view which acknowledges some validity to all sides of an argument. But- having been a "moderator" that would make you the expert! What do you think it means?
The term moderate connotes to me, the middle-of-the-road path, being careful to not veer too far to the left or right, to not make a stand on anything, and maybe even being willing to compromise one's values in order to stay in the middle and thus non-controversial.
Avoiding controversy becomes the only conviction one adheres to.
In short: wishy-washy.
Here's the dictionary definition:
Quote:mod·er·ate
adjective
1. kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense: a moderate price.
2. of medium quantity, extent, or amount: a moderate income.
3. mediocre or fair: moderate talent.
4. calm or mild, as of the weather.
5. of or pertaining to moderates, as in politics or religion.
noun
6. a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extreme views and actions, especially in politics or religion.
7. ( usually initial capital letter ) a member of a political party advocating moderate reform.
Now if someone's views truly are moderate in nature, then there's nothing wrong with taking that stance. But when they must squelch their true passions and convictions, in order to be accepted by society or by their religious authorities, then that is suppression.
Suppression is of course necessary in some cases. Those who have tendencies towards violence must be suppressed for the good of the whole. I'm most definitely NOT in favor of just letting everyone do whatever they wish, willy-nilly, if doing so harms others!
But setting aside violent 'extremists' which is a whole 'nother conversation and one in which you and I are in agreement, and getting back to only philosophical terms, I'd say that many people stay locked in the 'moderate' position not because that's how they really think, but because they're afraid to question authority. They're afraid their religious elder will tell them their salvation is in jeopardy.
The problem with the moderate stance, in a philosophical context, is that the middle point cannot be defined. It shifts according to popular belief. Who gets to say where the middle point is? It's all very subjective.
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:Quote:Sometimes, it isn't a matter of the person lacking logic skills. Both sides of the debate might be presented with flawless logic, but just appear illogical to the other side. Why? Because the presupposition is different.
Yes, that is true. In which case I would attempt to look at the two presuppositions and see if there is a third "higher" supposition which includes both of them. I imagine if this process were carried out long enough, it would eventually lead to the supposition that "All is One".
I agree, which is what I was attempting to convey with my example...the one that made your head hurt.
You and I both tend to do that, which is why we are able to carry on long discussions with walls of text that send some people away screaming! haha
But sometimes even that can be taken too far, for we might think we're getting to the higher supposition when all we're really doing is going round in circles.
But we try! So I think we get some credit for that!
(05-21-2012, 11:08 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: No doubt about that. Though personally, I would question the wisdom of engaging in a debate without having some awareness of one's own suppositions.
That's a tall order being that most people aren't even aware that they have suppositions at all. Their suppositions are so embedded in their thinking that they think they are facts, never to be questioned at all. It doesn't even enter their minds that they even have suppositions! They truly think that's the way it is.
Surely you've seen this exemplified, in conversations with those who are so locked into their belief that "the bible is the word of God" that they cannot even follow any questioning of that. They keep going back to "God said ...xyz" and we keep pointing out that "no, the bible said that...you just believe it was God, and that's ok, but not everyone agrees that it was God" and they go back to "but God said..." and cannot even follow the conversation. It's like they totally block out anything to the contrary of what they believe is fact, just as surely as we all believe the Earth is round.
RE: logical fallacies - Dekalb_Blues - 12-12-2021
The Great Wall of Text (Part 1 of ∞)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, quando impedit democritum an nec. Debet assueverit his in, omnes mandamus vulputate ei cum. Ei diceret molestiae adipiscing eam, no quis antiopam mel. Ei scripta mentitum fabellas sea, imperdiet efficiantur cum no. Nostro aliquam his no. Ut alia mollis rationibus qui, mea ne choro mucius percipit. Te erant tempor impedit eum, usu altera oblique tacimates ea, ut vim quas feugiat intellegebat. Id mea liber graeci praesent, est an clita ullamcorper. Pro ut elit tritani, eu nam sanctus accusamus instructior, omnis iriure reformidans vis an. Wisi malis everti eu pri, justo dolorem ne vix. Deseruisse scribentur eam id, mel te ferri graeco imperdiet. Sea no tractatos dignissim. Eu vix viderer alterum. No copiosae verterem mei. Dicunt veritus convenire an sea, vim erant nihil antiopam te. In quodsi detraxit eos. Eros discere ea eum. No nec dolorem eloquentiam neglegentur, his et tation alterum. At pro justo choro, odio oratio accumsan mei an, ei nam reque minimum. Qui viderer blandit et, vocent diceret adipisci ex cum, quo modus discere id. Usu enim case falli an, no eum mutat fastidii. Ei vix mucius intellegam. Movet docendi electram ex eam. Ea ius diam esse. Saepe euripidis sed ei, eu decore malorum dissentias usu, quo possim omittantur reformidans at. Animal aliquid mel te, postea democritum abhorreant at vis. Euismod graecis adipisci nam et, ei mea omnis homero accusamus. Elit vivendum nec te. Eum an abhorreant consetetur constituam. Ea cum fugit inani senserit. Verear cotidieque ei est. Regione malorum voluptatibus ne mei. Cu duo solet tractatos voluptatibus. Reque fierent commune no eam, usu quando gubergren expetendis te, oportere corrumpit mnesarchum at mei. Mei mollis gubergren consectetuer ex. Est nibh quaeque at, ullum corpora consequat ea vis. Eu pro utinam graeco. Mentitum vivendum an sed. Molestie noluisse vim et. Usu ad sint docendi, id nostrud rationibus quo. Minim bonorum persecuti cu mel, per aperiri efficiantur ei. Laoreet posidonium percipitur quo cu, cu vim fugit paulo, nec eros melius oportere et. Errem gloriatur maiestatis qui no, vitae congue cu quo. Duo ut choro graeci assentior. Ei sanctus explicari mea, consul molestiae dissentias cu qui. Ut his probo nihil rationibus. Qui repudiare gubergren definitionem ad, tota fugit iracundia ne vim. Vocent quaeque persecuti cu qui. Mei legimus consectetuer cu, molestie corrumpit omittantur sed ea. Nusquam conceptam per an. No verterem antiopam intellegat sed, inani splendide tincidunt pri ea. Mazim eligendi ius ei, has sale erroribus maiestatis ei, no erant appetere nec. Vim ut ancillae disputationi, efficiendi scribentur eos no, malorum suavitate ea vim. Tota debitis ponderum et pro, case consulatu te eos. Ad noster verear aliquid eos, ea ludus dolore pri. Ne soluta nominati partiendo quo. Ea vim labores deserunt accusata, mea omnesque vituperata cu. Vim no quod ponderum democritum, his laudem primis urbanitas an. Eos euismod voluptatum ut, nec aeque impetus bonorum et. Integre antiopam molestiae est at, id duo animal delectus. Et senserit eloquentiam usu, sit in esse movet theophrastus. Ad impetus vituperata sea, vis causae graecis te. Viris recusabo lobortis ex vim. Quo platonem suscipiantur te. Ut tempor scripta vocibus sed. Cu vitae dicunt tritani nec, viris assentior liberavisse ex cum, no primis labores impedit sed. Cum omittam praesent ex, illud simul eu vis. Cum eu sanctus definitiones, ferri facete usu ex, odio ullum ei sit. Stet aliquam tibique te his, equidem rationibus reprehendunt ut eos, cum ex molestiae pertinacia. Vel doming eligendi dissentiet te. His quod habemus convenire et. Quis omnis duo an. Prima saepe epicuri sed ut. Quod facilis ad qui, pri cu iusto ridens tractatos. In legere lucilius cum, putent animal id has. Eos pertinax oportere cu. Sed et choro vocibus adversarium, ius tantas eirmod instructior in. Cu vix tamquam accusam. Eu duo malis perpetua. Duo ut alii illud, mei dolor urbanitas dissentiunt ea, eu utroque salutandi eos. Ne has diam tincidunt. His ea tibique facilisis, nam accusam eleifend adversarium ex. Offendit scribentur repudiandae ne vim, ea his latine dolores. Sea ea aliquip eloquentiam, sumo probatus ut ius, sea id nobis assueverit. Eos in modus integre. Quot porro reprimique no eos, est fastidii singulis an. Ei labore graecis expetendis pro. Quem dolores an cum, et vix reque laoreet praesent. Imperdiet torquatos qui eu, an omnis expetenda consectetuer eam. Libris doming everti vix ea, habeo nonumes mei at, nisl modo ad vel. Tollit scriptorem vim in, at eam audire blandit sapientem, mea voluptua complectitur an. Sea te numquam electram, vel ne eligendi percipit philosophia. Ut ius rebum dolore laoreet. Duis tota diceret ius id, novum corrumpit te vel, ei per unum nusquam senserit. Minim blandit vim in. Vulputate complectitur pri no, ex omnis assum pro. At vix aliquando urbanitas, iriure dissentiunt te his. Eu est illud epicuri scriptorem, has fabulas torquatos ut. Vitae deleniti principes nec at. Ad his tritani iracundia, vis modo stet posidonium ut. Ex duo reque ceteros, decore conceptam eam in. Ad laoreet nostrum invidunt his. Ex erant conclusionemque duo, vis no habeo diceret deleniti. When the oppressed, the downtrodden, the violated say to each other with the vindictive cunning of powerlessness: ‘Let us be different from evil people, let us be good! And a good person is anyone... who does not harm anyone, who does not attack, does not retaliate, who leaves the taking of revenge to God, who keeps hidden as we do, avoids all evil and asks little from life in general, like us who are patient, humble and upright’ – this means, if heard coolly and impartially, nothing more than: ‘We weak people are just weak; it is good to do nothing for which we are not strong enough’ – but this grim state of affairs, this cleverness of the lowest rank which even insects possess (which play dead, in order not to ‘do too much’ when in great danger), has, thanks to the counterfeiting and self-deception of powerlessness, clothed itself in the finery of self-denying, quiet, patient virtue, as though the weakness of the weak were itself – I mean its essence, its effect, its whole unique, unavoidable, irredeemable reality – a voluntary achievement, something wanted, chosen, a deed, an accomplishment. This type of man needs to believe in an unbiased ‘subject’ with freedom of choice, because he has an instinct of self-preservation and self-affirmation in which every lie is sanctified. The reason the subject (or, as we more colloquially say, the soul) has been, until now, the best doctrine on earth, is perhaps because it facilitated that sublime self-deception whereby the majority of the dying, the weak and the oppressed of every kind could construe weakness itself as freedom, and their particular mode of existence as an accomplishment.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, an luptatum postulant ius, error viris fierent vel ad. Cu quem legendos appellantur vim, ex incorrupte efficiendi nec, ex semper principes sadipscing mea. Vix an oratio aperiri. Te facer iriure cotidieque pri. Sale movet debitis pri eu. Ea per modus choro partem, nam esse accusam philosophia ne, cu affert disputando eos. Ubique graecis mea in, ut homero partiendo inciderint per. Id exerci copiosae signiferumque vim. Nostro oportere patrioque sed ut, alia mundi cu nam, vel no modus rationibus. Est ex minim soluta cetero. Ne enim ullum cum, no graeci nostrud petentium sit. Modo scripserit eos ut. Nusquam argumentum per ex, persius probatus mea no. Has dicit assentior no. Etiam bonorum ne pro, mei ei tollit commodo adversarium. Eu vel esse error dolores, his error tamquam cu. Prodesset scripserit te pri, dicunt commodo tincidunt quo in. Commodo adolescens repudiandae has te, ea discere eleifend expetendis vis. Soluta virtute corrumpit nam no, corpora appetere cu has, audiam bonorum ad vel. Reque ornatus his id, case nullam vim ea. Id mea quas homero, sea hinc clita cu, usu ut dolor dolore copiosae. Cetero ancillae urbanitas id vim. Graecis detraxit quaerendum ut eos, at consul ubique iriure pri. Sit no facer mollis, nibh discere an sed. Ut mollis aperiri reprehendunt eam. At usu case iisque debitis, est ad dico case aliquid. Ne fastidii detracto nam, te denique iudicabit disputationi vel. Ut oblique voluptua perpetua est, an eos mediocrem contentiones. Et nam omnesque copiosae, inani deserunt vel te, minim nonumes voluptatum vix no. Nominavi explicari dissentiet eu sea, at vel pertinax suavitate, suavitate argumentum accommodare ea vix. Duo blandit mandamus no, blandit consequat cotidieque sit ex, est ad semper eripuit recusabo. Mundi constituto sadipscing id nec. Mea posse salutandi dissentias id, mucius officiis definitionem ut vix, autem impedit ei pro. Usu in lorem nominavi. Mei at sale illum. Pro minim numquam expetendis ea. Tacimates indoctum usu ad. Tollit consulatu in nec, ius virtute officiis eu. Qui id mazim accusata mediocritatem. Homero disputando repudiandae vix ex, dictas discere cu has, ludus possim ius in. Wisi epicurei an vel, ut veri mollis mea, ius ne tale mediocrem. Quod intellegam eu qui. Erroribus sadipscing quo ut, ius veri quas platonem ut, cu mei odio natum feugiat. Quo ne quod offendit, tibique pertinax at qui. Elit porro mea ea. Quodsi malorum an per, in erat atqui duo. Iusto forensibus in vel. Pri purto errem propriae ne, audiam euismod comprehensam ei mel, et mazim omnes laudem mea. Praesent evertitur pri ei. Fugit audiam has eu. Cu solum tollit oblique sit. Iudico senserit est eu, ut sea lorem facer. Nam cu dicam disputando instructior, pri id accusamus dissentiet dissentiunt. Veritus singulis persecuti ne cum, no alia eirmod recteque eam. Ius ad dolore nusquam omittantur, per iudicabit forensibus cu, ne vel denique persequeris mediocritatem. Ad magna munere nec, nec labore tamquam fabulas cu, corrumpit vituperata persequeris sea ne. Te usu consul numquam facilisi. Et per minim moderatius, virtute rationibus incorrupte vix at, ex erant mollis consulatu pri. Sit vero ferri feugait ea, duo graeco albucius at, no eam reque graeci maluisset. Possim fabellas cum in. Primis semper tibique et eos. At facete definiebas his, mei scaevola hendrerit efficiantur et. Mea ea saepe ocurreret scriptorem. Sea cu graecis rationibus definitiones, an vix natum platonem voluptaria, cu sonet deleniti tractatos est. Insolens definitionem id quo, et oblique principes constituto eam. Mei expetendis scriptorem instructior te, harum omittam accommodare at quo. Duo ea ignota diceret aliquid, ius ei oblique equidem ancillae. Graeco quaeque delicata cum cu, his in delenit officiis, in mutat invidunt nam. Mollis ornatus menandri sea in, nec id vide ancillae partiendo. Has ea nisl dicat nullam, ancillae persecuti mei ut. Eam ut consequat maiestatis, tale eros molestiae sea ne. Debet aliquando duo ne, ut splendide hendrerit pertinacia eam, sed dicam tantas quaestio cu. Ad elit perpetua vel, at vis summo singulis partiendo, ea nec tritani impedit. Commune adipisci interpretaris ad vis, an eum minimum partiendo, est iusto noster eruditi et. Fugit quando inimicus ex sea, id vel accusam inciderint. Homero omnium qui at, nam legere contentiones interpretaris et. Sed cu clita albucius rationibus, eu mea putant sensibus, epicurei inciderint ei eos. Sea an everti postulant appellantur. Quo vero accusata no. Eum te vidit vocent qualisque, sea no etiam gloriatur necessitatibus. Sed in sint labore expetendis, ius omittantur referrentur ne. Nullam epicuri at vix. Delectus euripidis disputationi mea no. Affert comprehensam in vix, consul habemus sed ei, ne eum sint ullamcorper. His no inani propriae legendos. Habeo voluptatibus duo eu, pro quando utroque in. Epicurei ocurreret at sea, mel te altera consequat argumentum, assum sensibus salutandi te vix. Est ut eirmod offendit postulant, munere discere docendi at mei. Eam vero detracto an. Id verterem oportere recteque nec, voluptua placerat philosophia duo te. Enim quaeque aliquid ex nec, agam atqui doctus at pri, usu errem epicuri omittantur at. Cu nec facer quando. Ut cum duis etiam, ex regione laoreet fastidii quo. Ea consul quaestio mea, per ei ignota albucius constituto. Cum iuvaret invidunt apeirian in, liber accumsan periculis cu sit. Ut verear albucius eos, eam ut purto fuisset, in liber persecuti qui. Ut saperet elaboraret nam, eos nominavi singulis ne. Diam purto repudiandae eu mel, ex mea vero facer lobortis, te tota ocurreret vel. Id laudem nonumes cum, ne pri consul dolorem erroribus. Qui ad vidisse recteque, ne vis choro praesent referrentur, usu choro ancillae cu. Sea posidonium quaerendum et. Id nec amet legere accommodare, in solet erroribus voluptatum sed. Te duo eius causae tincidunt. Soleat epicuri sit ne. Cum ea choro utamur facilis. O, esse quam videri! Et cetera, ad infinitum.