The Rush To Be Right

[Paladin]

Okay, here's the link, quickly now before the guards spot us!
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...sn-python.html

[flowperson]

Paladin...

I think we're ok. Quite by accident I have noticed that the guards to the imagined realm mostly hang out in the top half of the board...you subversive you ! Keep up the good work.

flow....

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Okay, here's the link, quickly now before the guards spot us!
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...sn-python.html

Hehehe! {I'll leave whether that was a humorous, a nervous, or a maniac laugh open for interpretation}

[InLove]

Originally Posted by Seattlegal

Hehehe! {I'll leave whether that was a humorous, a nervous, or a maniac laugh open for interpretation}

(Clearing throat) I am sorry, Seattlegal, but we prefer that you employ the tiny little applause signs so we know what is funny.... <---example

InPeace,
InLove

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by InLove

(Clearing throat) I am sorry, Seattlegal, but we prefer that you employ the tiny little applause signs so we know what is funny.... <---example

InPeace,
InLove

"With Six You Get Eggroll"

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

Interesting topic, Paladin!

I hope ya'll won't mind I pulled a few quotes:

-There has to be something wrong when we condemn a person for not being open-minded.

-I would say that "Imrightnurrong" is just a mask {subtle reference to ego} that covers the true face of this lesser god: the Creater of Radicals. In whichever application mentioned here, it is simple logic and morality that is sacrificed, in favor of an "easy way out."

-it seems that fallacies of logic predominate in certain threads

-Sometimes behind people's stubborn position on certain topics, what happens is that they are desperately (can I say "I", "we"?) protecting a strong emotional, intellectual, and perhaps even a financial investment on those ideas/views.

-How clever the human species is at subverting reason when it comes to defending the false self.

Good points, all. And yet I am left to wonder...are "you" not also defending a *right* position in making statements such as these?

I guess what I am trying to say, is that we all need some sense of right (correct) as opposed to wrong (incorrect). Open mindedness certainly has a place, especially within logic and reason, but I would caution against being so open minded that one's brains fall out. That too, is a fallacy. So logic, and reason, *are* a fine line / tightrope to walk. And sadly, in order to work correctly, both sides must agree to fundamental elements of an argument. Perhaps this is why in some subjects of argument (science vs. religion, for example), the opposing sides seem to be talking past each other, because neither is willing to allow the fundamental elements of the other side.

Another thing I have noticed, is that *average* people are not so moved by facts and figures as they are by emotional appeals. Emotonal appeals can easily be translated as logical fallacies. It does not have to be factual, it just has to sound good. (Look up "behaviorism", John B. Watson, and advertising psychology) Politicians use this to their advantage every voting season, it's around us in force right now. Bumper sticker soundbites are what the vast majority of the voting public will use to make their political decisions, not the *truth* contained in facts and figures. Logical fallacies bedamned.

And, in fairness, few people in my estimation are aware of, let alone functionally capable of noticing and calling out, logical fallacies. By the time I discovered the concept (and the *list*), I found I had uncovered a few of them on my own, but I was very surprized to learn how often I used fallacious reasoning, even to myself. I like to believe I have learned a great deal from that series of lessons, but I still catch myself from time to time. The difference being that now I am aware. So I think it's an important point to make others aware of their logical fallacies in their arguments, the trick is in presenting that awareness in such a manner that it is received for what it actually is, and not a direct frontal assault on their personal philosophical outlook. Goodness knows I have a lot of room for improvement in this category.

Anyway, I think we all feel a need to be correct. It doesn't make any logical, philosophical, or psychological sense to try to guide our lives from a determinedly incorrect position. How we gather and justify just what is right or not is where and when fallacies of logic enter the equation, with emotion being the most dominant culprit. Sadly, emotion trumps logic, everytime. Love is blind. So is rage.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, all!

Interesting topic, Paladin!

I hope ya'll won't mind I pulled a few quotes:



Good points, all. And yet I am left to wonder...are "you" not also defending a *right* position in making statements such as these?

I guess what I am trying to say, is that we all need some sense of right (correct) as opposed to wrong (incorrect). Open mindedness certainly has a place, especially within logic and reason, but I would caution against being so open minded that one's brains fall out. That too, is a fallacy. So logic, and reason, *are* a fine line / tightrope to walk. And sadly, in order to work correctly, both sides must agree to fundamental elements of an argument. Perhaps this is why in some subjects of argument (science vs. religion, for example), the opposing sides seem to be talking past each other, because neither is willing to allow the fundamental elements of the other side.

Another thing I have noticed, is that *average* people are not so moved by facts and figures as they are by emotional appeals. Emotonal appeals can easily be translated as logical fallacies. It does not have to be factual, it just has to sound good. (Look up "behaviorism", John B. Watson, and advertising psychology) Politicians use this to their advantage every voting season, it's around us in force right now. Bumper sticker soundbites are what the vast majority of the voting public will use to make their political decisions, not the *truth* contained in facts and figures. Logical fallacies bedamned.

And, in fairness, few people in my estimation are aware of, let alone functionally capable of noticing and calling out, logical fallacies. By the time I discovered the concept (and the *list*), I found I had uncovered a few of them on my own, but I was very surprized to learn how often I used fallacious reasoning, even to myself. I like to believe I have learned a great deal from that series of lessons, but I still catch myself from time to time. The difference being that now I am aware. So I think it's an important point to make others aware of their logical fallacies in their arguments, the trick is in presenting that awareness in such a manner that it is received for what it actually is, and not a direct frontal assault on their personal philosophical outlook. Goodness knows I have a lot of room for improvement in this category.

Anyway, I think we all feel a need to be correct. It doesn't make any logical, philosophical, or psychological sense to try to guide our lives from a determinedly incorrect position. How we gather and justify just what is right or not is where and when fallacies of logic enter the equation, with emotion being the most dominant culprit. Sadly, emotion trumps logic, everytime. Love is blind. So is rage.

So good to see you Juan!

Yes there is so much to ponder in all the quotes you have pulled, and I wonder who is the "You" that is defending a right position. Further, what position exactly is being defended. It seems that multiple positions are mentioned by several people here, so forgive me if I find the question a bit vague.

I am reminded of CS Lewis' philososphy professor who when Lewis remarked nervously in his presence that it was a "nice day", the professor exclaimed "exactly what do you mean by 'nice' and how do you appy that to this particualr day? "
Now there's a curmudgeon for you, but I can't help but feel a little admiration for the old boy.

It was Artistotle himself who said that the mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it. If more persons were able to at least do this, I should be quite inspired and joyus.
However, as you have stated to have a proper, calm and hopefully edifying discussion there needs to be a structure that logic and reason can provide, if the "combatants" would or could adhere to the set parameters.
Learning the fallacies of logic can uncover attempts to prove a proposition with rhetorical pathos, as you mention. With tools like the computer, and wonderful search engines, is there really any excuse anymore to not be privy to such things?

Peace

Mark

[lunamoth]

Ooops! I thought this thread was going to be about Rush Limbaugh. *luna tiptoes away*

[InLove]

From wiki:

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also known as falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false dichotomy, false correlative, either/or dilemma or bifurcation), involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered. The two alternatives presented are often, though not always, the two extreme points on some spectrum. Instead of such extreme simplification and wishful thinking, considering the whole spectrum, as in fuzzy logic, may be more appropriate.
The false dilemma fallacy refers to misuse of the or operator. For another misuse of "or", see the false choice fallacy. For misuse of the and operator, see package-deal fallacy.
A false dilemma may not necessarily be limited to two choices; it may involve three possibilities, in which case it is known as a trifurcation, or more, in which case the dilemma may be more the result of accidental omission than deliberate intent.

InPeace,
InLove

[InLove]

LOL luna! (gotta watch the tiptoing)

[Paladin]

Hi In Love,

Thank you for posting the info on the false choice fallacy, it is one of the fallacies I see used quite often in these forums. Did you have a particular motivation for posting it? I'm sorry if I missed your point dear

[InLove]

Hi Paladin--

Originally Posted by Paladin

Hi In Love,

Thank you for posting the info on the false choice fallacy, it is one of the fallacies I see used quite often in these forums. Did you have a particular motivation for posting it? I'm sorry if I missed your point dear

Ummm....did I mess up? False dilemma and false dichotomy not the same? Sorry--back to the classroom I go. (And this is something I should know, doing what I sometimes do for a living .)

Didn't mean to derail the discussion. In the words of the great prophet Spears: OOPS! I DID IT AGAIN!

Please do continue...

InPeace,
InLove

[InLove]

(Guess one might call that the "rush to be wrong"?) Looking up "false dichotomy now...after the Ann & Nancy concert...

Peace&Love!

[InLove]

Hi, Peace Everybody

Forgive me for posting three times in a row, but in the sincere interest of getting this conversation back on track—

Paladin, you mentioned that you had once posted a list of logical fallacies somewhere for the purpose of discussing them. This is from my Simon & Schuster Handbook for Writers. My motivation in posting this list is to follow up on this discussion by offering some of the reasons why the “imrightnurong” often dominates in any given debate. I just thought it might be helpful. (The “false dichotomy/dilemma” I may have erroneously zoned in on is the “either/or” fallacy listed here.) I'm not suggesting that we should discuss each fallacy in detail (unless that's what we want to do, which I kinda doubt), but that we just take a look. If this is anything at all llike the list you to which you referred, then maybe it is good to nail it up on the wall again for reference and edification. Maybe the balloon will float this time.


Please, if I am approaching this from an inappropriate angle, someone tell me. If I am, then all I can think of is that maybe I am approaching from a literary critical view rather than a philosophical one? But I don’t know how it differs much, if at all. Maybe there is “a middle road”?


Hasty generalization: generalizing from inadequate evidence. Stereotyping is hasty generalization using prejudiced claims about a group of people.

False analogy: using a comparison in which the differences outweigh the similiarities, or in which the similiarities are irrelevant to the claim the analogy is intended to support

Begging the question: a kind of circular reasoning that offers as proof of an argument a version of the argument itself or uses a (presumably) shared assumption to stand for proof

Irrelevant argument: reaching a conclusion that does not follow from the premises

False cause: assuming that because two events are related in time, the first caused the second

Self-contradiction: using two premises that cannot both be true

Red herring: sidetracking the issue by raising a secon, unrelated issue

Argument to the person: attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself

Guilt by association: attacking a person’s ideas because of that person’s interests or associates

Bandwagon: inplying that something is right or is permissable because “everyone” does it

False or irrelevant authority: siting the opinion of a person who has no expertise about the subject

Card-stacking: ignoring evidence on the other side of a question

The either-or fallacy: offering only two alternatives when more exist

Taking something out of context: distortin an idea or fact by separating it from the material surrounding it

Appeal to ignorance: assuming that an argument is valid simply because there is no evidence on the other side of the issue

Ambiguity and equivocation: using expressions that are not clear because they have more than one meaning

I really do hope this somehow helps. I really don't want to sidetrack things again.

InPeace,
InLove

[seattlegal]

Actually, InLove, your list could be very helpful in "opening the eyes of the blind," as juantoo3 mentioned:

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Anyway, I think we all feel a need to be correct. It doesn't make any logical, philosophical, or psychological sense to try to guide our lives from a determinedly incorrect position. How we gather and justify just what is right or not is where and when fallacies of logic enter the equation, with emotion being the most dominant culprit. Sadly, emotion trumps logic, everytime. Love is blind. So is rage.

It's another way of "turning the other cheek," so to speak, by giving the enraged person another chance to either attack, or to not repeat their "sin," in the light of understanding. This should be done in the spirit of mildness, for the best effect, IMHO.