What is going on with this F'n board
Intothewild
Posts: 68
Used to be intelligent discourse here. What is going on?? What's with the innane mud slinging? Somone please start an intelligent political discussion beyond "I hate the war" or "I love Cucinich". Give it a whirl........
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://www.facebook.com/jennytree
SMELL YER MA!
tough decision...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
It's certain individuals who like to make the discussions personal and inflate their own ego by belittling others.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Or it's an old user who got banned for posting useless threads.
http://www.homeschoolestore.com/catalog/images/bingo.gif
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
We're waiting for you to say something intelligent.
<crickets>
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
Kucinich
Instead of complaining about it why don't you start a thread on a topic you wish to discuss.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Hail, Hail!!!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Agreed.
Let's examine some of these:
Argument from fallacy
If an argument is fallacious, its conclusion must be false.
Masked man fallacy
The substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one
Appeal to probability
Because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.
Bare assertion fallacy
Premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
Affirming a disjunct
Concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true.
Denying the antecedent
The consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false.
Affirming the consequent
The antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true.
false dilemma (Also: "false dichotomy")
Two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are several.
Existential fallacy
An argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion.
Illicit conversion
The invalid conclusion that because a statement is true, the inverse must be as well.
Argument from fallacy "ad logicam"
• Affirming the consequent or Denying the antecedent
Faulty generalization Inductive fallacies such as
• Biased sample
• Half-truths
• Hasty generalization
• Misleading vividness
• Package-deal fallacy or False dilemma
• Proof by example
• Data-snooping
Questionable cause Informal causal fallacies
• Begging the question, circular logic "petitio principii"
• Correlation implies causation "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc"
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc
• Appeal to probability & Slippery slope
Informal Relevance fallacies
• Irrelevant conclusion "Ignoratio elenchi" like Red herring
• Straw man
• Association fallacy
• Ad hoc
• "Ad hominem" — Attacking the person rather than the argument
Informal Verbal fallacies
• Equivocation & Loki's Wager
• Undistributed middle & No true Scotsman
Triangular Fallacy -- a common social phenomenon
Appeal to novelty (also called argumentum ad novitatem)
Argument from silence (also called argumentum ex silentio)
Appeal to wealth (also called argumentum ad crumenam)
Appeal to poverty (also called argumentum ad lazarum)
Argument from repetition (also called argumentum ad nauseam)
Base rate fallacy
Conditional probability fallacy
Conjunction fallacy
Continuum fallacy (also called fallacy of the beard)
Correlative based fallacies including:
• Fallacy of many questions (also called complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question or plurium interrogationum)
• Denying the correlative
• Suppressed correlative
Definist fallacy
Dicto simpliciter, including:
• Accident (also called a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)
• Converse accident (also called a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter)
Fallacies of distribution:
• Composition
• Division
• Ecological fallacy
False analogy
False attribution
False premise
False compromise
Faulty generalization including:
Gambler's fallacy/Inverse gambler's fallacy
Genetic fallacy
Historian's fallacy
Homunculus fallacy
If-by-whiskey (argues both sides)
Inappropriate interpretations or applications of statistics including:
• Screening test fallacy
Incomplete comparison
Inconsistent comparison
Invalid proof
Judgmental language
Juxtaposition
Lump of labour fallacy (also called the fallacy of labour scarcity)
Meaningless statement
Middle ground (also called argumentum ad temperantiam)
Naturalistic fallacy
Negative proof
Nirvana fallacy
Non sequitur like Affirming the consequent, also including its opposite
Perfect solution fallacy
Poisoning the well
Proof by assertion
Proof by verbosity (also called argumentum verbosium)
Questionable cause (also called non causa pro causa) including:
• Fallacy of the single cause
• Joint effect
• Regression fallacy
• Texas sharpshooter fallacy
• Wrong direction
Reification (fallacy) (also called hypostatization)
Relativist fallacy (also called subjectivist fallacy)
Restricted Universalism, Fallacy of
Retrospective determinism (it happened so it was bound to)
Shifting the burden of proof
Special pleading
Style over substance fallacy
Sunk cost fallacy
Syllogistic fallacies, including:
• Affirming a disjunct
• Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
• Existential fallacy
• Fallacy of exclusive premises
• Fallacy of four terms (also called quaternio terminorum)
• Illicit major & Illicit minor
And many more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
If we can't expect our politicians to be logical, then it's no surprise that our populace isn't either. If you read into this list, go to the page, click the links, read it and understand it, it becomes clear that these are too common.
I typically like to watch The Agenda with Steve Paikan, one of the only total debate shows with professional speakers. But, I do recognize some fallaciousness in it as well. "Most Canadians..." argumentum ad populum "In the past we have...." argumentum ad antiquitatem "We can't be sure...." argumentum ad ignoratum, etc...
Homunculus argument
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Homunculus fallacy)
Jump to: navigation, search
The homunculus argument arises most commonly in the theory of vision. One may explain (human) vision by arguing that the light from the outside world forms an image on the retinas in the eyes and something (or some'one') in the brain looks at these images as if they are images on a movie screen (this theory of vision is sometimes termed the theory of the Cartesian Theater: it is most associated, nowadays, with the psychologist David Marr). But the question is: 'who' is it who is looking at this 'internal' movie inside the brain? The assumption here (although this is rarely made explicit) is that there is a 'little man' or 'homunculus' inside the brain 'looking at' this movie. (Alternatively it might be proposed that the images on the retinas are transferred to the visual cortex where it is scanned. But here again, all that has been done is to place a homunculus in the brain behind the cortex.)
The reason why this is a fallacy is that an obvious problem then presents itself: how does the homunculus 'see' this internal movie? The obvious answer is that there is another homunculus inside the first homunculus's 'head' or 'brain' looking at this 'movie'. But how does this homunculus see the 'outside world'? In order to answer this, we are forced to posit another homunculus inside this other homunculus's head and so forth. In other words, we are in a situation of infinite regress. This is always a sure sign that an argument has gone wrong. (Another way of putting this is to say that the homunculus argument accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain--that is, homuncular arguments are fallacious for the same reason that a recipe for cake that had, as one of its ingredients, 'cake' is not a real (explanatory) recipe).
[edit] Homunculus arguments in terms of Rules
Another example is with cognitivist theories that argue that the human brain uses 'rules' to carry out operations (these rules often conceptualised as being like the algorithms of a computer program). For example, in his work of the '50s, '60s and '70s Noam Chomsky argued that (in the words of one of his books) human beings use Rules and Representations (or to be more specific, rules acting on representations) in order to cognise (more recently Chomsky has abandoned this view: c.f. the Minimalist Program).
Now, in terms of (say) chess, the players are given 'rules' (i.e. the rules of chess) to follow. So: who uses these rules? The answer is self-evident: the players of the game (of chess) use the rules: it's not the case (obviously) that the rules themselves play chess. The rules themselves are merely inert marks on paper until a human being reads, understands and uses them. But what about the 'rules' that are, allegedly, inside our head (brain)? Who reads, understands and uses them? Again, the implicit answer is (and, some would argue, must be) a 'homunculus': a little man who reads the rules and then gives orders to the body to act on them. But again we are in a situation of infinite regress, because this implies that the homunculus has cognitive process that are also rule bound, which presupposes another homunculus inside its head, and so on and so forth. Therefore, so the argument goes, theories of mind that imply or state explicitly that cognition is rule bound cannot be correct unless some way is found to 'ground' the regress.
This is important because it is often assumed in cognitive science that rules and algorithms are essentially the same: in other words, the theory that cognition is rule bound is often believed to imply that thought (cognition) is essentially, the manipulation of algorithms, and this is one of the key assumptions of some varieties of artificial intelligence.
Homunculus arguments are always fallacious unless some way can be found to 'ground' the regress. In the psychology and philosophy of mind, 'homunculus arguments' (or the 'homunculus fallacies') are extremely useful for detecting where theories of mind fail or are incomplete.
The Homunculus fallacy is closely related to Ryle's Regress.
A possible counter to this is that the brain as a whole is the homunculus, rather than thinking a specific part must be watching the movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_fallacy
Damn right!
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
www.bebo.com/pearljam06
This hat is also quite nice...have you seen?
http://blogs.citizen-times.com/blogs/media/blogs/tourists/pancake_bunny.jpg
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I thought we were here to talk about pancakes:(
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
www.bebo.com/pearljam06
http://www.angelzfunnyz.com/Portals/0/Gallery/Album/2/pancake-wearing-dalmation.jpg
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You're right, I contradicted myself.
http://home.earthlink.net/~valeriasj/id20.html
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")