One advantage computers have above humans is that they are objective. They aren't biased by asshole preconceptions of "engrams" that cloud the human mind. But for instance, computers don't understand certain algebra terms and expressions and symbols. Neither do I. Computers don't "know" calculus per se. That gives me something in common with computers I lack with higher mathmeticians. Terms need to be "parsed" or broken down in terms that the computer can understand. This is my goal in this piece for readers of it. Before we get to the Meat of our main topic, let's enjoy these amusing little sidelights first.
People say that Rick Santorum has become the BUTT of many jokes because of his stances on sexual morality. One might even say that Santorum's responses have been a little ANAL. Of course it is presumed that Santorum experianced PLEASURE from getting the BUMP in the polls a couple weeks ago.
Oprah Winfrey said that it might be a good mental exercise to pretend that they have some British house guest who is prim and proper and all. If they do they might choose to carry on more Civil Arguments with each other when they have them.
Rick Perry said that the only reason why Mitt Romney would be worried about Pink Slips was whether he had enough of them to fire all the people he needed to that day. It is the source of pleasure and amusement with me that now the absence of Jobs and unemployed people who got Fired has now been made the topic of discussion by Rick Perry in South Carolina.
Will Horton on DL is learning a lesson he should have learned long ago in trying to take on E J Di Mira himself. He failed to heed the four word Rush Limbaugh addage, ""Don't Poke The Bear".
We all know that Alpha Centauri is a military outpost of the Federation. We can infer from this that the Federation is safe from Iranian attack. Because Rick Perry said that the Iranian Army would swoop down on Iraq "with the speed of light". At that rate it would take 4.3 years for the Iranians to get to Alpha Centauri.
They say you know a Politician is way up in the polls with a virtual lock on the election, when the only thing that could possibly undo him would be finding either a Dead Woman or a love missing Boy in his apartment.
Apparently Governor Christie made some sexual proposition tword some woman. But the comentator then added that "Obviously it would be an Exploritory mission". Let me parse that word Exploritory for you. That means that you're not sure what you'll find beneathe the brush, and it may turn out that there is nothing there at all.
THE THIRTEEN GOLDEN RULES OF LOGICAL ARGUMENT
A PRIORI ASSUMPTIONS All argument is based on both sides making certain assumptions, or in leagel terms allowing certain facts to be Stipulated as true. For instance even the computer has to Assume certain things are true before you program it. When it sees the binary formation 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 for instance the computer need to be informed that this configure is the letter "A" and not the number 65. Now I might ask for purposes of Argument of you to assume that the Bible is true and that it is the "word of God". Then I would be free to quote from it with certain statements like "The Devil is a liar from the beginning" and "the Devil is a deceiver" and make the inference that BECAUSE the devil is a Liar, therefore he deceives in order to sell his Lies. We may read "God is not the author of Confusion". Therefore we can infer that anyone who prides himself on giving a Confusing sermon to his congregation - - is not doing the work of God. We in a letter of Paul, for instance warmed about "The uncertain trumpeter".
SYLLIGISMS These are you classic If and Then statements such as "If it is Raining- - the Sidewalk will be Wet". The Inverse of a statement need not always be true, and the Converse of a statement need not always be true, but the contrapositive of a statement is always true. Since the Inverse of a statement is always the contrapositive of it's Converse, we can infer that if the Inverse is true, it follows that the Converse is true.
CIRCULAR LOGIC Avoid this at all costs. You can't refer to your own argument as support for your argument. In computer programming and Excel you want to avoid circular logic. Circular is not reitteration. Rather- Circular logic is the embodiment of an argument in total. In programming you run the danger of over-writing values of your own Variables.
THE INCLUSIVE FALLACY It is argued that "all dogs have four legs" and then "this chair has four legs" - therefore "This chair is a dog". No the correct argument is "all dogs have four legs". "This over here is a dog. Therefore it has four legs". So many people of the cloth as well as politicians make this obvious inclusion fallacy.
THE 'JUST RHETORIC' NON EXCUSE Pastor Bill Halliday has accused me of flippency and asking rhetorical questions where I did not want an answer. Like everything Pastor Bill says to me, these are lies. I mean everything I say and if anything understate rather than overstate things. I don't use flippency or rhetoric with Bill because, lets face it, humor doesn't work with a person devoid of any. My philosophy is to never pose s Rhetorical question you don't want answer. Usually the answer should be obvious. Many people stupidly post questions they think are "rhetorical" I'd just LOVE to answer, and expose the speaker as both a fool and an Asshole in doing so. Some "answers" can really be amusing when you think about it.
NO CROSSING LOGIC LINES In electricity the danger of a "short" with "crossed wires" is apparent. In programming it's the same thing. Again there is the danger of overwriting variables. In Sketch you have the issue of "continuity of space". Don't make two arguments at the same time that are entirely on different planes because you'll just confuse the audience if they believe you are going two different directions at once. In "short circuited" logic, you can be on one line- - and "short" on to the other and lose your train of thought.
FRAGMENTED LOGIC This is the "What does that have to do with the price of tea and China?" question. There must be a causal Nexis between all parts of your argument. You can't have a disconnected fragment off somewhere isolated because it's Variables will be rendered by the Program as of Zero value. (if you're even that lucky) Many conspiracy books from the Left and the Right make this logical error. Computers don't make abstractions and "connect up the dots" by Assuming the existance of dots, which have not been established.
TRY TO ARGUE FROM THE LESSER TO THE GREATER It's always best to Understate your argument rather than to Over-state it. In this way you gain credibility. Some arguments are so "over-stated" they need new numbers to quantify them. We all know the expression of "going off on Tangents". This uses the Geometric definition of the word assuming a ball on a string that then flies off into space in sort of a Newtonian gravity free world. If one rather reverts to the trogonometric definition of the word- - one may deduce that as the quality of the Premise decreases, the error measured by Tangent- - increases. At certain points the "value" of the premise actually goes Negative and hence it can be argued that the Error quantitative figure goes beyond Infinity itself. For instance you argue that "Not everybody gets into heaven". As a reason you are told "Well, you wouldn't just invite any stranger off the street to dinner, would you?" This is trying to argue that somehow since God is like us only Magnified that if we are selfish bastards than God is a a Bigger selfish bastard. But if it turns out that God id NOT a selfish bastard At All- - and God DOES in fact invite total strangers to dinner, then the error factor of this argument can be said to exceed Infinity.
ISOLATING VARIABLES Countless people, more from the left than the right make this fallocy. They do these surveys trying to prove that certain Drugs or Substances CAUSE things. But they never isolate the causal element down to one thing- - but instead there is a whole HOST of factors that opperate TOGETHER and as such any ONE or more of them can in fact be the causal element and not the thing you are measuring or testing for.
ARGUMENT SOUNDNESS Many arguments can be perfectly Logical but unsound, none the less. For instance many Nazi and Eugenics arguments fall into this category. Their arguments may have a sick Logic to them but their Premises are Unsound. For instance these arguments if put into practice would neither be moral or ethical - - - nor functional, for that matter, ans as such should be discarded.
AD HOMINUM ATTACKS We generally don't want to argue "To the man" by making some personal or below the belt attack. Dennis Prager has often spoken of an individual needing not to live up to the moral values he is expousing as idea\s. A common thing for people to do for instance may be that is someone argues the proposition "When it comes to sex with with a Woman- - size doesn't matter". If you come back with "Well I've seen his thing in the shower and NO WONDER he's trying to justify his own inadequacy by arguing this line". Hitting below the belt is not kosher. However one exception to this is, for instance if a person makes Himself a premise of the argument. For instance if he says "I am the living embodyment of Christian values. Since I am superior to you, the only way you can possibly find Salvation from your pathetic state is to take on my OWN ethics and values, and mind state and intentions". But suppose you later find out this individual has been in an ongoing homosexual relationship for ten years? This pretty much puts the kabosh on any hope of his being a spokesman for what he has said.
MIND YOUR DEFINITIONS AND ANTECEDENTS One should always clearly define his terms and also try and obey trhe "first usage" rule. In legal documents terms are initially defined, like a computer variable, and then used throughout the article. One should note always what the antecedent a word refers Back to, later on in the dissertation.
MOTIVES AND PURPOSE One need not know the Motive behind an argument, only its Intent or goal. What is, in other words, the Object of the argument? Ones mind state is not relivent while making the argument. In like manner police care much less about the psychological motives behind a Crime is- - but for them Intent is key- -even when it comes to questioning an suspect later. Bad motives will not invalidate a good argument, and just as important - - Good motives will not validate a bad argument.
footnote: It was in May of 1979 that the whole "Ship of Fools" story got perhaps its first airing with Pastor Bob, may even before snail mailings to the media. This is the story about a protagonist named Karl Barf. The general premise of the story is that religion is something that makes anybody want to vomit. (pre Dead Kennedies) Another lesson of the "ship of Fools" story is that some people or groups of people pretend to be above it all and not apart of the world, when by their mere separation from the world, show their lack of credibility, and also they themselves suffer to their own detriment.
No comments:
Post a Comment