Showing posts with label informal fallacies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label informal fallacies. Show all posts

Friday, March 4, 2016

George Orwell Made this Happen in the Presidential Debates

'Erroric's the Arthur, Blairing';-)...
George (the old Fox or Orwell? definitely not the Fox Channel)
stood up in the debate meeting and interrupted the pontificating, deluded leaders--

after last night's TV debacle...

Spring down

Another fox slitter
of sly sniveling,
sneering ‘sludge’-hammering,
champaigned driveling...
or sparkled whining;

this political smatter
a propped (take) a gander--
that’s a great car, son, said the ad,

and the
mad hatted rubik cube or rubio-cruz,
all these 'publicans and demoncrats--
all these trumpets and hilariousites

d a n c e d across the historical stage;



yes, more gaffes
got staged;


don’t take such bait;
feel the burn.

No jangle in all this jingoism;
fall down, chrusteites,
huckersterbeites, bushed and appalled...

Instead spring up!

forget voted offerings to the god malware

in this mad alice’d animal farm



-Daniel Wilcox

Rejected by the NVN magazine, not published last week:-)

--


Oh, Has-Been-No-Be, what did you start?!












Lost in the 'maize';-)

Daniel Wilcox

Friday, January 15, 2016

Part #2: What Is Clarity of the Mind?

Continuing with the series, Purity of Mind and Heart:

#1: Use reason to clarify your worldview, when making major decisions, and in opposing what is false, wrong, and destructive.
Steer clear of informal and logical fallacies.


#2 Keep in mind that sometimes the term fallacy can even be used as a fallacy! For example, it has often happened in “appeal to authority.” An individual states 98% of plumbers in the U.S. think that such and such pipe is more reliable than…Or most philosophers think that…
And a person who disagrees says, “Oh, that’s just an appeal to authority—Fallacy!"

Nope. Showing that most authorities in their field support a view--the consensus--isn’t a fallacy, that’s evidence.

The fallacy, “appeal to authority” is when you argue most ministers, or most people in the U.S., believe that evolution is false. That is an error in authority because whether or not evolution is true or false is a subject for biologists to study and present evidence for one way or the other (97% of scientists say evolution is a fact).

Whether or not not most ministers, or most of the public, oppose evolution as false is not significant because they aren't scientists!

#3 Though carefully thought out reasoning is the watch-word, It’s okay, (even sometimes needed or necessary), to make intuitive jumps. Scientists and other thinkers often use intuition including famous ones such as Albert Einstein. Remember his comment about how imagination is more important than knowledge.


When making intuitive leaps, however, make sure it’s not near a cliff;-).

If you’ve been studying a project or issue in depth and haven’t solved the problem, then taking a break, even sleeping on it may help. One scientist actually made an important discovery in a dream.

However, if you are about to try out a new parachute, launch a rocket, get married, or change worldviews, it behooves you to double check your sudden intuitive insight with some careful thinking and evidence.

#4 When thinking through an ethical problem, be careful about semantic confusion, simplistic terms, and confirmation bias. Take a look at Peanuts:


















And consider another example of confirmation bias, semantic confusion, and simplistic term-iteness:

"I'm pro-life! Strongly against abortion. We stand with America and our troops. Remember what our Christian leader said, God's gift to America
is the atom bomb."

Huh?



In the Light of Reason,

Daniel Wilcox