[Vision2020] (no subject)
Art Deco
deco at moscow.com
Fri Jan 21 17:55:15 PST 2011
Mostly fog.
----- Original Message -----
From: lfalen
To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)
I am sorry that you have such a low opinion of Me. I think that you occasionally make some good point. Does that mean that some of your ideas are wrong or that all of them are ? I prefer things to be straight foreword. In your convoluted logic does that means I beat around the bush? Seems a a little circular to me. I could go on ad nasium. Do you get my drift?
On another item that may be of interest to you- "The National Trust for Historical Preservation" has recently featured several Art Deco buildings. I assume that you are fan of his.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:22:32 -0800
To: "Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)
> OK, one more attempt.
>
> >From Logic by Wesley Salmon, one of the 20th century best known and most formidable inductive logicians discussing fallacies and some apparent fallacies which may not be:
>
> [http://www.ditext.com/salmon/logic.html]
>
> 25. ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON
>
> The argument against the person4 is a type of argument that concludes that a statement is false because it was made by a certain person. It is closely related to the argument from authority, but it is negative rather than positive. In the argument from authority, the fact that a certain person asserts p is taken as evidence that p is true. In the argument against the person, the fact that a certain person asserts p is taken as evidence that p is false.
>
> In analyzing the argument from authority, we saw that it could be put into an inductively correct form, a special case of the statistical syllogism. To do so, it was necessary to include a premise of the form "x is a reliable authority concerning p." We discussed the characteristics of reliable authorities. The argument against the person can be handled similarly. To accomplish this end we need an analogous premise involving the concept of a reliable anti-authority. A reliable anti-authority about a given subject is a person who almost always makes false statements about that subject. We have the following inductively correct argument form:
>
> a] x is a reliable anti-authority concerning p.
> x asserts p.
> ∴ Not-p (i.e., p is false).
>
>
> Like the argument from authority, this is also a special case of the statistical syllogism. It could be rewritten:
>
> b] The vast majority of statements made by x concerning subject S are false.
> p is a statement made by x concerning subject S.
> ∴ p is false.
>
>
> It must be emphasized that a reliable anti-authority is not merely someone who fails to be a reliable authority. A person who is not a reliable authority cannot be counted upon to be right most of the time. This is far different from being consistently wrong. An unreliable authority is a person who cannot be counted upon at all. The fact that such a person makes a statement is evidence for neither its truth nor its falsity.
>
> Schema a is, as we have said, inductively correct, but whether it has any utility depends upon whether there are any reliable anti-authorities. It will be useless if we can never satisfy the first premise. Although there are not many cases in which we can say with assurance that a person is a reliable anti-authority, there does seem to be at least one kind of reliable anti-authority, namely, scientific cranks.5 They can be identified by several characteristics.
>
> 1.. They usually reject, in wholesale fashion, all of established science or some branch of it.
> 2.. They are usually ignorant of the science they reject.
> 3.. The accepted channels of scientific communication are usually closed to them. Their theories are seldom published in scientific journals or presented to scientific societies.
> 4.. They regard opposition of scientists to their views as a result of the prejudice and bigotry of scientific orthodoxy.
> 5.. Their opposition to established science is usually based upon a real or imagined conflict between science and some extrascientific doctrine -- religious, political, or moral.
> A "scientific" theory propounded by a person who has the foregoing characteristics is very probably false.
>
> Great scientific innovators propose theories that are highly unorthodox and they meet with strenuous opposition from the majority of scientists at the time. Nevertheless, they are not cranks, according to our criteria. For instance, highly original scientific theorists are, contrary to characteristic 2, thoroughly familiar with the theories they hope to supersede. Furthermore, we must note, deductive validity has not been claimed for schema a. The fact that a statement is made by a reliable anti-authority does not prove conclusively that it is false. We cannot claim with certainty that no scientific crank will ever produce a valuable scientific result.
>
> Although the argument against the person does have the inductively correct form a, it is frequently misused. These misuses are usually substitutions of emotional appeal for logical evidence. Instead of showing that someone who makes a statement is a reliable anti-authority, the misuser vilifies the person by attacking that person's personality, character, or background. The first premise of a is replaced by an attempt to arouse negative feelings. For example,
>
> c] In the 1930s the Communist party in Russia rejected the genetic theories of Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, as "bourgeois idealism." A party orator who said "The Mendelian theory must be regarded as the product of a monkish bourgeois mind" would be guilty of a fallacious use of the argument against the person.
>
>
> Clearly, the national, social, and religious background of the originator of a theory is irrelevant to its truth or falsity. Being an Austrian monk does not make Mendel a reliable anti-authority in genetics. The condemnation of the Mendelian theory on these grounds is an obvious case of arousing negative emotions rather than providing negative evidence. It is also an instance of the genetic fallacy (section 3). A subtler form of the same fallacy may be illustrated as follows:
>
> d] Someone might claim that there is strong psychoanalytic evidence in Plato's philosophical writings that he suffered from an unresolved oedipal conflict and that his theories can be explained in terms of this neurotic element in his personality. It is then suggested that Plato's philosophical theories need not be taken seriously because they are thus explained.
>
>
> Even if we assume that Plato had an Oedipus complex, the question still remains whether his philosophical doctrines are true. They are not explained away on these psychological grounds. Having an Oedipus complex does not make anyone a reliable anti-authority.
>
> Just as the argument from consensus is a special form of the argument from authority, similarly there is a negative argument from consensus which is a special form of the argument against the person. According to this form of argument, a conclusion is to be rejected if it is accepted by a group that has negative prestige. For example,
>
> e] Chinese Communists believe that married women should have the right to use their own family names.
> ∴ Married women should be compelled to adopt the family names of their husbands.
>
>
> This argument is clearly an attempt to arouse negative attitudes toward some aspects of women's liberation.
>
> There is one fundamental principle that applies both to the argument from authority and to the argument against the person. If there is objectively, a strong probability relation between the truth or falsity of a statement and the kind of person who made it, then that relation can be used in a correct inductive argument. It becomes the first premise in a statistical syllogism. Any argument from the characteristics of the person who made a statement to the truth or falsity of the statement, in the absence of such a probability relation, is invariably incorrect. These fallacious arguments are often instances of the genetic fallacy (section 3). Example c of section 3, as well as example c of this section, illustrates this point.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 4 The argument against the person is closely related to, but not identical with the traditional arsumentum ad hominem. This departure from tradition is motivated by the symmetry between the argument from authority and the argument against the person, and by the fact that the argument against the person is reducible to statistical syllogism.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Art Deco
> To: Vision 2020
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)
>
>
> I give up.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lfalen
> To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)
>
>
> Quit trying to be coy. Come right out and say what the hell you mean.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:40:49 -0800
> To: "Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)
>
> > Further evidence.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: lfalen
> > To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:00 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)
> >
> >
> > No, I do not get your drift.
> > Roger
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
> > Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:37:30 -0800
> > To: "Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)
> >
> > > Roger's post below is not a kudos of Rumelhart's posts; rather a condemnation (if you get the drift).
> > >
> > > w.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: lfalen
> > > To: Paul Rumelhart ; Andreas Schou
> > > Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 12:11 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that you are one of the most reasonable people who post here and I agree with about 90% of your posts.
> > > Roger
> > > -----Original message-----
> > > From: Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
> > > Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:50:07 -0800
> > > To: Andreas Schou ophite at gmail.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] (no subject)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I tend to annoy everybody, I think. It's a special trait of mine.
> > > >
> > > > I haven't met very many people on the list in real life. I know Sue
> > > > Hovey, I've met Nick Gier, and I've talked to Keely on the phone.
> > > >
> > > > I miss some of the old-timers that haven't been around in a while. Is
> > > > Chasuk still around somewhere? There have been periods of time where I
> > > > haven't followed the list as much as I'd like, so maybe I just haven't
> > > > seen his posts.
> > > >
> > > > Although Ted and I are constantly beating our heads against each other,
> > > > I respect his character and can confidently say that he's a principled
> > > > person who cares deeply about the environment. Nothing wrong with
> > > > that. As I tend to get a bit snarky in my responses far too regularly,
> > > > I apologize to him now for the many sarcastic and unfriendly remarks
> > > > I've made over the years.
> > > >
> > > > I've talked with Gary both on and off the list (a few times, anyway) and
> > > > find him to be a good guy. He calls them like he sees them, and I
> > > > respect that. My path over the last few years is one of realizing that
> > > > even people you differ with have important things to say and that
> > > > everything is not so black and white as people try to make it appear.
> > > > My opinion of Gary has changed for the better since I've interacted with
> > > > him, and that can only be a good sign.
> > > >
> > > > Apart from the last few weeks, I haven't interacted with Joe that much,
> > > > but I appreciate the civil discourse we've had, even though we both
> > > > probably shriek at the walls various unflattering remarks about each
> > > > other after a long back-and-forth. He's an intelligent guy, and he also
> > > > calls 'em like he sees 'em, too. That's a good thing.
> > > >
> > > > I've had some good conversations with Donovan, and find him to be a nice
> > > > guy.
> > > >
> > > > Andreas is one of the more reasonable posters on the list, I enjoy his
> > > > posts when I see them. He seems level-headed and intelligent and wise,
> > > > really.
> > > >
> > > > I enjoy Tom's humorous posts, and appreciate the work he does for the
> > > > community. I'm not as big a fan of cats as he is, though. Don't hate
> > > > them, mind you, but I'm not as enamored of them.
> > > >
> > > > I enjoy Keely's posts, even though we often disagree about some things.
> > > > I also enjoy Nicks posts, they are very thought-provoking. There are
> > > > lots of others I'm missing, I'm sure. Reggie, Roger, Wayne, Jeff, Dan,
> > > > Dave, Deb, and others. All of them nice people who think I'm a fruitcake ;)
> > > >
> > > > It certainly doesn't hurt to take a break from the mud-slinging and to
> > > > realize that real people actually exist behind their on-line personas.
> > > > This list is an enigma. It's full of generally nice people who like to
> > > > yell at each other all the time. It must be the dehumanizing properties
> > > > of the email medium, I guess.
> > > >
> > > > Ah well, back to the mudslinging, I say!
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > Andreas Schou wrote:
> > > > > Gary's one of a very small number of conservative commentators that
> > > > > I've managed to read consistently since I first became politically
> > > > > aware. In part, this may be due to the fact that he is one of a very
> > > > > small number of conservative commentators whom I may annoy precisely
> > > > > as much as he annoys me. But, even where I think he's wrong, he's at
> > > > > least responsive.
> > > > >
> > > > > He's also a damn good locksmith and, as far as I've heard and
> > > > > experienced, a decent human. I only disagree with him about matters of
> > > > > life, death, and whether and how the government should acquire and
> > > > > spend trillions of dollars. Other than that, we're cool. And he's not
> > > > > the only conservative here that's made a positive contribution to the
> > > > > community.
> > > > >
> > > > > Many of you know my wife had a brain tumor a couple of years ago and
> > > > > nearly died. I was in Seattle for most of the relevant period, but I
> > > > > received an unsolicited offer from Doug Farris to bring over
> > > > > casseroles and whatnot. I couldn't take him up on it (because I
> > > > > suspect his offer didn't extend to driving the casseroles to Seattle),
> > > > > but I appreciated it more than he knows. And I was genuinely sorry to
> > > > > hear that Pat Kraut died; in all of my professional dealings with her,
> > > > > through the Nazarene church, she genuinely enacted the charitable
> > > > > values we so vehemently disagreed about the government enacting.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know the rest of the conservatives here as well. Glenn isn't a
> > > > > real person (though I once had a perfectly civil lunch with the person
> > > > > I believe he is). Donovan Arnold probably wouldn't kick a puppy unless
> > > > > the puppy really had it coming. Jeff Harkins is sometimes genuinely
> > > > > helpful, and bright and dedicated, if sometimes glib.
> > > > >
> > > > > I realize that it'll soon be time to get back to shouting at each
> > > > > other. As we should. Isn't that why we're all here? (Maybe not Paul.
> > > > > He doesn't seem like a crank. I mean that as a compliment.) But in the
> > > > > spirit Dear Leader proposes, I think taking a moment to appreciate the
> > > > > people we will soon be throwing rotten fruit at seems appropriate.
> > > > >
> > > > > -- ACS
> > > > >
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > =======================================================
> > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > =======================================================
> > >
> > > =======================================================
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > =======================================================
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110121/c76d25fb/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list