Author
|
Topic: RE: virus: Re: Camel's nose bagged and tagged. (Read 827 times) |
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
RE: virus: Re: Camel's nose bagged and tagged.
« on: 2003-10-03 15:08:10 » |
 |
[Blunderov]
I wonder if fallacies are an example of a very hardy type of meme
similar to the alleged anthrax (?) in the pharaohs' tombs that were
still viable after thousands of years. Innoculation is the only
remedy...
http://www.msnbc.com/news/967844.asp?vts=100320031152
<q>
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that Saddam's regime "did
indeed pose a current and serious threat" and showed that Iraqi
authorities had defied U.N. weapons inspectors.
"If we had not taken military action at the time we did in the
face of that defiance ... the resolve of the international community
would have died down," he said. "And then the inspectors would have
found it more and more difficult to do their work, as they had done
before. Then they would have been kicked out, then we would have had a
Saddam Hussein still there, re-empowered and re-emboldened."
</q>
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
<q>
Fallacy: Slippery Slope
Also Known as: The Camel's Nose.
Description of Slippery Slope
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some
event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the
inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a
series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question
and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations
will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to
believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an
argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which
there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event
and another.
Examples of Slippery Slope
"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll
be charging $40,000 a semester!"
"The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the
government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to
die."
"You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over
you."
"We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start
banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you
know, they will be burning all the books!"
</q>
Best Regards
Blunderov
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Kalkor
Magister
Gender:
Posts: 109
Reputation: 6.78
Rate Kalkor
Kneading the swollen donkey...
 
|
|
RE: virus: Re: Camel's nose bagged and tagged.
« Reply #1 on: 2003-10-03 21:09:44 » |
|
[Blunderov]
I wonder if fallacies are an example of a very hardy type of meme
similar to the alleged anthrax (?) in the pharaohs' tombs that were
still viable after thousands of years. Innoculation is the only
remedy...
[Kalkor]
Sounds reasonable. Whether a meme is correct or factual seems to me to have
little to do with whether it is effective. Fallacies are effective in
convincing people of things.
I have enjoyed learning about them and will continue to do so. I also point
them out to others as often as possible, with explanations of why and how
they are considered fallacies. This exercise of defining and identifying
them is valuable not only to me, but to everyone out there. If they
participate, or even if they just observe. With that in mind, I thought
maybe we could continue to exchange observations of fallacious arguments out
in the real world.
Thank you for your help too, Blunderov. Sorry my responses have been slow
and few, but I've had an exciting couple of weeks that I may tell you folks
about sometime soon when I have a chance.
I hope this next one pisses some of you off. Controversy seems to stimulate
conversation ;-}
Ok, I got an email from Moveon.org, an organization that I participated in
to organize protests of the impending Iraq war earlier this year. They've
continued to fill my inbox with call-to-arms wording of a distinctly biased
type, and I take a great amount of amusement in picking apart their
arguments. The latest one is in regards to the impending California recall
election, and in particular one of the major candidates: Arnold
Schwarzenegger. I'd like to quote a couple of news sources used in the
email, and have you folks see if you can figure out which fallacies have
been used and why you think so. Here goes:
"Yesterday, there were revelations about Arnold Schwarzenegger's physical
harassment of women -- charges which he has refused to deny. Today he is
struggling to explain statements he has made throughout his life regarding
Adolf Hitler and another Nazi war criminal."
Refused to deny? Was he being dared to deny them? What, so when you
accuse someone of something, and they don't deny it, they are in effect
'refusing' something? Refusing to rise to some sort of bait? hmmmmmm
Now, the statement he made about Hitler:
Quote:"Exceprt from today's front page New York Times article:
http://nytimes.com/2003/10/03/national/03BOOK.html?hp
Schwarzenegger Admired Hitler, Book Proposal Says
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
A film producer who chronicled Arnold Schwarzenegger's rise to fame as a
champion bodybuilder in the 1970's circulated a book proposal six years ago
that quoted the young Mr. Schwarzenegger expressing admiration for Adolf
Hitler.
The book proposal by the producer, George Butler, included what were
presented as verbatim excerpts from interviews with Mr. Schwarzenegger in
the filming of the documentary "Pumping Iron." In a part of the interview
not used in the film, Mr. Schwarzenegger was asked to name his heroes - "who
do you admire most."
"It depends for what," Mr. Schwarzenegger said, according to the transcript
in the book proposal. "I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from
being a little man with almost no formal education up to power. And I admire
him for being such a good public speaker."
In addition to the transcript, Mr. Butler wrote in his book proposal that in
the 1970's, he considered Mr. Schwarzenegger a "flagrant, outspoken admirer
of Hitler." In the proposal, Mr. Butler also said he had seen Mr.
Schwarzenegger playing "Nazi marching songs from long-playing records in his
collection at home" and said that the actor "frequently clicked his heels
and pretended to be an S.S. officer.""
|
I admire lions for their hunting prowess. I do not admire lions for their
cuddliness. So, if this man admires Hitler for his speaking ability or the
fact that he surmounted obstacles, does that necessarily mean he admires
Hitler for being a Nazi? In fact, he seems to have indicated this exact
concept by his use of the phrase "It depends for what," which he used to
qualify his statement (or so he is quoted as doing). In context, I would
almost assume he intentionally used the Hitler example to point out that you
can admire someone for one thing while reviling them for another.
Next, the article is quoting one man's opinion about another man. In
addition, I think this is what is called "hearsay". However, the implication
is that the man being quoted is an authority and that his word should be
taken as gospel when he "considers" another man to be a "flagrant, outspoken
admirer of Hitler." Is Mr. Butler an expert on Nazis? Is he a licensed
psychoanalyst? Did he never play 'Cops and Robbers' as a child? I did. I
distinctly remember having to play the bad guy some times, and this required
clicking my heels and pretending to be an S.S. officer several times.
Anyhow, please feel free to pick apart anything in here. I welcome the
discussion!
Kalkor
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Re: Camel's nose bagged and tagged.
« Reply #2 on: 2003-10-04 02:52:49 » |
|
Kalkor
> Sent: 04 October 2003 0310
<snip>
> Whether a meme is correct or factual seems to me to
> have
> little to do with whether it is effective. Fallacies are effective in
> convincing people of things.
>
> I have enjoyed learning about them and will continue to do so. I also
> point
> them out to others as often as possible, with explanations of why and
how
> they are considered fallacies. This exercise of defining and
identifying
> them is valuable not only to me, but to everyone out there. If they
> participate, or even if they just observe. With that in mind, I
thought
> maybe we could continue to exchange observations of fallacious
arguments
> out in the real world.
[Blunderov1]
Yes. It is turning into a bit of a hobby for me, like stamp collecting.
There is an amazing wealth of material to be had - so much so that it
seems likely that politicians and advertisers make <em> deliberate </em>
use of these faulty memes in order to persuade. This is, IMV, entirely
despicable - comparable to handing out free blankets that are infected
with smallpox. The victims go on to perpetuate the memes in their own
private lives and also infect their children.
> Thank you for your help too, Blunderov. Sorry my responses have been
slow
> and few, but I've had an exciting couple of weeks that I may tell you
> folks
> about sometime soon when I have a chance.
>
> I hope this next one pisses some of you off. Controversy seems to
> stimulate
> conversation ;-}
>
> Ok, I got an email from Moveon.org, an organization that I
participated in
> to organize protests of the impending Iraq war earlier this year.
They've
> continued to fill my inbox with call-to-arms wording of a distinctly
> biased
> type, and I take a great amount of amusement in picking apart their
> arguments. The latest one is in regards to the impending California
recall
> election, and in particular one of the major candidates: Arnold
> Schwarzenegger. I'd like to quote a couple of news sources used in the
> email, and have you folks see if you can figure out which fallacies
have
> been used and why you think so. Here goes:
>
> "Yesterday, there were revelations about Arnold Schwarzenegger's
physical
> harassment of women -- charges which he has refused to deny. Today he
is
> struggling to explain statements he has made throughout his life
regarding
> Adolf Hitler and another Nazi war criminal."
>
> Refused to deny? Was he being dared to deny them? What, so when you
> accuse someone of something, and they don't deny it, they are in
effect
> 'refusing' something? Refusing to rise to some sort of bait? hmmmmmm
>
> Now, the statement he made about Hitler:
>
>
Quote:> "Exceprt from today's front page New York Times article:
> http://nytimes.com/2003/10/03/national/03BOOK.html?hp
>
> Schwarzenegger Admired Hitler, Book Proposal Says
> By ADAM NAGOURNEY and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
>
> A film producer who chronicled Arnold Schwarzenegger's rise to fame as
a
> champion bodybuilder in the 1970's circulated a book proposal six
years
> ago
> that quoted the young Mr. Schwarzenegger expressing admiration for
Adolf
> Hitler.
>
> The book proposal by the producer, George Butler, included what were
> presented as verbatim excerpts from interviews with Mr. Schwarzenegger
in
> the filming of the documentary "Pumping Iron." In a part of the
interview
> not used in the film, Mr. Schwarzenegger was asked to name his heroes
-
> "who
> do you admire most."
>
> "It depends for what," Mr. Schwarzenegger said, according to the
> transcript
> in the book proposal. "I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came
> from
> being a little man with almost no formal education up to power. And I
> admire
> him for being such a good public speaker."
>
> In addition to the transcript, Mr. Butler wrote in his book proposal
that
> in
> the 1970's, he considered Mr. Schwarzenegger a "flagrant, outspoken
> admirer
> of Hitler." In the proposal, Mr. Butler also said he had seen Mr.
> Schwarzenegger playing "Nazi marching songs from long-playing records
in
> his
> collection at home" and said that the actor "frequently clicked his
heels
> and pretended to be an S.S. officer.""
> |
>
> I admire lions for their hunting prowess. I do not admire lions for
their
> cuddliness. So, if this man admires Hitler for his speaking ability or
the
> fact that he surmounted obstacles, does that necessarily mean he
admires
> Hitler for being a Nazi? In fact, he seems to have indicated this
exact
> concept by his use of the phrase "It depends for what," which he used
to
> qualify his statement (or so he is quoted as doing). In context, I
would
> almost assume he intentionally used the Hitler example to point out
that
> you
> can admire someone for one thing while reviling them for another.
>
> Next, the article is quoting one man's opinion about another man. In
> addition, I think this is what is called "hearsay". However, the
> implication
> is that the man being quoted is an authority and that his word should
be
> taken as gospel when he "considers" another man to be a "flagrant,
> outspoken
> admirer of Hitler." Is Mr. Butler an expert on Nazis? Is he a licensed
> psychoanalyst? Did he never play 'Cops and Robbers' as a child? I did.
I
> distinctly remember having to play the bad guy some times, and this
> required
> clicking my heels and pretending to be an S.S. officer several times.
>
> Anyhow, please feel free to pick apart anything in here. I welcome the
> discussion!
[Blunderov1]
http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~mcglonem/contexto.htm
<q>
Contextomy: The Art of Quoting "Out of Context"
The term "contextomy" refers to the strategic excerpting of words from
their original linguistic context in a way that distorts their intended
meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context"
(McGlone & Zerr, under review). This practice is frequently employed in
contemporary mass media to promote products, defame public figures, and
misappropriate rhetoric in political debate. A contextomized quotation
not only prompts audiences to form false impressions of a speaker's
intentions, but can also contaminate subsequent interpretation of the
quote when it is restored to its original context. I recently
demonstrated this counterintuitive consequence of contextomy in an
experiment (McGlone, under review). Participants read a series of
fabricated quotes about affirmative action in college admissions and
made judgments about the degree to which their fictitious sources
favored or opposed the policy. One of the quotes they evaluated was
strategically excerpted from a neutral paragraph to make it appear to be
either anti- or pro-policy. When they later read the full paragraph,
participants encouraged to infer attitude-related characteristics of the
speaker (e.g., political party preference) revised their impressions
significantly less than others prompted to infer unrelated or
non-speaker characteristics. These results not only demonstrate the
tenacity of contextomy's ill effects, but also shed light on how
affirmative action's opponents have been able to misappropriate the
rhetoric of the civil rights movement and use it further their cause
</q>
One also sees this effect when a person is forced into the position of
having to deny something even if it is a patently false accusation. The
denial serves only to cause a residual, negative image of the accusation
to be retained in the observers mind. ("Dirty pool old man, dirty pool!"
Gomez in the Adams Family)
Best Regards
Blunderov
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Re: Camel's nose bagged and tagged.
« Reply #3 on: 2003-10-04 12:54:50 » |
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/04/politics/04WEAP.html?th
<q>
Speaking emphatically on the South Lawn of the White House, Mr. Bush
said the preliminary findings of active research projects in Iraq and
efforts to obtain missiles proved that "Saddam Hussein was a danger to
the world."
<q>
[Blunderov]
Do I understand the President to be saying, in effect:
All weapons of mass destruction are a danger to the world,
Therefore all dangers to the world are weapons of mass destruction?*
Sounds like that to me.
Best Regards
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/illiconv.html
<q>
Illicit Conversion
AKA: False Conversion
Type: Fallacy of Quantificational Logic
Forms: All P are Q.
Therefore, all Q are P. Some P are not Q.
Therefore, some Q are not P.
Similar Validating Forms: No P are Q.
Therefore, no Q are P. Some P are Q.
Therefore, some Q are P.
Examples: All communists are atheists.
Therefore, all atheists are communists. Some dogs are not pets.
Therefore, some pets are not dogs.
Counter-examples: All dogs are mammals.
Therefore, all mammals are dogs. Some mammals are not cats.
Therefore, some cats are not mammals.
Exposition:
Conversion is a validating form of immediate inference for E- and I-type
categorical propositions. To convert such a proposition is to switch the
subject and predicate terms of the proposition, which is non-validating
for the A- and O-type propositions. Hence, the fallacy of Illicit
Conversion is converting an A- or O-type proposition.
</q>
*The reason for attacking Iraq was given as the existence, or imminent
existence of WOMD.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
