The Rush To Be Right

Kindest Regards, all!

Interesting topic, Paladin!

I hope ya'll won't mind I pulled a few quotes:

-There has to be something wrong when we condemn a person for not being open-minded.

-I would say that "Imrightnurrong" is just a mask {subtle reference to ego} that covers the true face of this lesser god: the Creater of Radicals. In whichever application mentioned here, it is simple logic and morality that is sacrificed, in favor of an "easy way out."

-it seems that fallacies of logic predominate in certain threads

-Sometimes behind people's stubborn position on certain topics, what happens is that they are desperately (can I say "I", "we"?) protecting a strong emotional, intellectual, and perhaps even a financial investment on those ideas/views.

-How clever the human species is at subverting reason when it comes to defending the false self.

Good points, all. And yet I am left to wonder...are "you" not also defending a *right* position in making statements such as these?

I guess what I am trying to say, is that we all need some sense of right (correct) as opposed to wrong (incorrect). Open mindedness certainly has a place, especially within logic and reason, but I would caution against being so open minded that one's brains fall out. That too, is a fallacy. So logic, and reason, *are* a fine line / tightrope to walk. And sadly, in order to work correctly, both sides must agree to fundamental elements of an argument. Perhaps this is why in some subjects of argument (science vs. religion, for example), the opposing sides seem to be talking past each other, because neither is willing to allow the fundamental elements of the other side.

Another thing I have noticed, is that *average* people are not so moved by facts and figures as they are by emotional appeals. Emotonal appeals can easily be translated as logical fallacies. It does not have to be factual, it just has to sound good. (Look up "behaviorism", John B. Watson, and advertising psychology) Politicians use this to their advantage every voting season, it's around us in force right now. Bumper sticker soundbites are what the vast majority of the voting public will use to make their political decisions, not the *truth* contained in facts and figures. Logical fallacies bedamned.

And, in fairness, few people in my estimation are aware of, let alone functionally capable of noticing and calling out, logical fallacies. By the time I discovered the concept (and the *list*), I found I had uncovered a few of them on my own, but I was very surprized to learn how often I used fallacious reasoning, even to myself. I like to believe I have learned a great deal from that series of lessons, but I still catch myself from time to time. The difference being that now I am aware. So I think it's an important point to make others aware of their logical fallacies in their arguments, the trick is in presenting that awareness in such a manner that it is received for what it actually is, and not a direct frontal assault on their personal philosophical outlook. Goodness knows I have a lot of room for improvement in this category.

Anyway, I think we all feel a need to be correct. It doesn't make any logical, philosophical, or psychological sense to try to guide our lives from a determinedly incorrect position. How we gather and justify just what is right or not is where and when fallacies of logic enter the equation, with emotion being the most dominant culprit. Sadly, emotion trumps logic, everytime. Love is blind. So is rage.
 
juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards, all!

Interesting topic, Paladin!

I hope ya'll won't mind I pulled a few quotes:



Good points, all. And yet I am left to wonder...are "you" not also defending a *right* position in making statements such as these?

I guess what I am trying to say, is that we all need some sense of right (correct) as opposed to wrong (incorrect). Open mindedness certainly has a place, especially within logic and reason, but I would caution against being so open minded that one's brains fall out. That too, is a fallacy. So logic, and reason, *are* a fine line / tightrope to walk. And sadly, in order to work correctly, both sides must agree to fundamental elements of an argument. Perhaps this is why in some subjects of argument (science vs. religion, for example), the opposing sides seem to be talking past each other, because neither is willing to allow the fundamental elements of the other side.

Another thing I have noticed, is that *average* people are not so moved by facts and figures as they are by emotional appeals. Emotonal appeals can easily be translated as logical fallacies. It does not have to be factual, it just has to sound good. (Look up "behaviorism", John B. Watson, and advertising psychology) Politicians use this to their advantage every voting season, it's around us in force right now. Bumper sticker soundbites are what the vast majority of the voting public will use to make their political decisions, not the *truth* contained in facts and figures. Logical fallacies bedamned.

And, in fairness, few people in my estimation are aware of, let alone functionally capable of noticing and calling out, logical fallacies. By the time I discovered the concept (and the *list*), I found I had uncovered a few of them on my own, but I was very surprized to learn how often I used fallacious reasoning, even to myself. I like to believe I have learned a great deal from that series of lessons, but I still catch myself from time to time. The difference being that now I am aware. So I think it's an important point to make others aware of their logical fallacies in their arguments, the trick is in presenting that awareness in such a manner that it is received for what it actually is, and not a direct frontal assault on their personal philosophical outlook. Goodness knows I have a lot of room for improvement in this category.

Anyway, I think we all feel a need to be correct. It doesn't make any logical, philosophical, or psychological sense to try to guide our lives from a determinedly incorrect position. How we gather and justify just what is right or not is where and when fallacies of logic enter the equation, with emotion being the most dominant culprit. Sadly, emotion trumps logic, everytime. Love is blind. So is rage.


So good to see you Juan!

Yes there is so much to ponder in all the quotes you have pulled, and I wonder who is the "You" that is defending a right position. Further, what position exactly is being defended. It seems that multiple positions are mentioned by several people here, so forgive me if I find the question a bit vague.

I am reminded of CS Lewis' philososphy professor who when Lewis remarked nervously in his presence that it was a "nice day", the professor exclaimed "exactly what do you mean by 'nice' and how do you appy that to this particualr day? "
Now there's a curmudgeon for you, but I can't help but feel a little admiration for the old boy.

It was Artistotle himself who said that the mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it. If more persons were able to at least do this, I should be quite inspired and joyus.
However, as you have stated to have a proper, calm and hopefully edifying discussion there needs to be a structure that logic and reason can provide, if the "combatants" would or could adhere to the set parameters.
Learning the fallacies of logic can uncover attempts to prove a proposition with rhetorical pathos, as you mention. With tools like the computer, and wonderful search engines, is there really any excuse anymore to not be privy to such things?

Peace

Mark
 
From wiki:

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also known as falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false dichotomy, false correlative, either/or dilemma or bifurcation), involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered. The two alternatives presented are often, though not always, the two extreme points on some spectrum. Instead of such extreme simplification and wishful thinking, considering the whole spectrum, as in fuzzy logic, may be more appropriate.
The false dilemma fallacy refers to misuse of the or operator. For another misuse of "or", see the false choice fallacy. For misuse of the and operator, see package-deal fallacy.
A false dilemma may not necessarily be limited to two choices; it may involve three possibilities, in which case it is known as a trifurcation, or more, in which case the dilemma may be more the result of accidental omission than deliberate intent.

InPeace,
InLove
 
Hi In Love,

Thank you for posting the info on the false choice fallacy, it is one of the fallacies I see used quite often in these forums. Did you have a particular motivation for posting it? I'm sorry if I missed your point dear:)
 
Hi Paladin--

Paladin said:
Hi In Love,

Thank you for posting the info on the false choice fallacy, it is one of the fallacies I see used quite often in these forums. Did you have a particular motivation for posting it? I'm sorry if I missed your point dear:)

Ummm....did I mess up?:eek: False dilemma and false dichotomy not the same? Sorry--back to the classroom I go. (And this is something I should know, doing what I sometimes do for a living .)

Didn't mean to derail the discussion. In the words of the great prophet Spears:rolleyes:: OOPS! I DID IT AGAIN!:eek:

Please do continue...

InPeace,
InLove
 
(Guess one might call that the "rush to be wrong"?:)) Looking up "false dichotomy now...after the Ann & Nancy concert...

Peace&Love!
 
Hi, Peace Everybody:)

Forgive me for posting three times in a row, but in the sincere interest of getting this conversation back on track—

Paladin, you mentioned that you had once posted a list of logical fallacies somewhere for the purpose of discussing them. This is from my Simon & Schuster Handbook for Writers. My motivation in posting this list is to follow up on this discussion by offering some of the reasons why the “imrightnurong” often dominates in any given debate. I just thought it might be helpful. (The “false dichotomy/dilemma” I may have erroneously zoned in on is the “either/or” fallacy listed here.) I'm not suggesting that we should discuss each fallacy in detail (unless that's what we want to do, which I kinda doubt), but that we just take a look. If this is anything at all llike the list you to which you referred, then maybe it is good to nail it up on the wall again for reference and edification. Maybe the balloon will float this time.:)


Please, if I am approaching this from an inappropriate angle, someone tell me. If I am, then all I can think of is that maybe I am approaching from a literary critical view rather than a philosophical one? But I don’t know how it differs much, if at all. Maybe there is “a middle road”?;)


Hasty generalization: generalizing from inadequate evidence. Stereotyping is hasty generalization using prejudiced claims about a group of people.

False analogy: using a comparison in which the differences outweigh the similiarities, or in which the similiarities are irrelevant to the claim the analogy is intended to support

Begging the question: a kind of circular reasoning that offers as proof of an argument a version of the argument itself or uses a (presumably) shared assumption to stand for proof

Irrelevant argument: reaching a conclusion that does not follow from the premises

False cause: assuming that because two events are related in time, the first caused the second

Self-contradiction: using two premises that cannot both be true

Red herring: sidetracking the issue by raising a secon, unrelated issue

Argument to the person: attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself

Guilt by association: attacking a person’s ideas because of that person’s interests or associates

Bandwagon: inplying that something is right or is permissable because “everyone” does it

False or irrelevant authority: siting the opinion of a person who has no expertise about the subject

Card-stacking: ignoring evidence on the other side of a question

The either-or fallacy: offering only two alternatives when more exist

Taking something out of context: distortin an idea or fact by separating it from the material surrounding it

Appeal to ignorance: assuming that an argument is valid simply because there is no evidence on the other side of the issue

Ambiguity and equivocation: using expressions that are not clear because they have more than one meaning

I really do hope this somehow helps. I really don't want to sidetrack things again.:eek: :)

InPeace,
InLove
 
Actually, InLove, your list could be very helpful in "opening the eyes of the blind," as juantoo3 mentioned:
juantoo3 said:
Anyway, I think we all feel a need to be correct. It doesn't make any logical, philosophical, or psychological sense to try to guide our lives from a determinedly incorrect position. How we gather and justify just what is right or not is where and when fallacies of logic enter the equation, with emotion being the most dominant culprit. Sadly, emotion trumps logic, everytime. Love is blind. So is rage.
It's another way of "turning the other cheek," so to speak, by giving the enraged person another chance to either attack, or to not repeat their "sin," in the light of understanding. This should be done in the spirit of mildness, for the best effect, IMHO. :)
 
Thanks, Seattlegal. I am glad that it might be of value to someone. I know it is to me, because I have much to learn in many areas. Quite a bit, actually, when it comes to "research".;)

All part of the learning process.

InPeace,
InLove
 
lunamoth said:
Ooops! I thought this thread was going to be about Rush Limbaugh. *luna tiptoes away*

Ummm...Luna, the longer this thread goes on, the more I DO believe it IS about Rush Limbaugh !

flow....:cool:
 
Kindest Regards!

Special nod to InLove, thanks for the list!

the longer this thread goes on, the more I DO believe it IS about Rush Limbaugh !
Of course it is! Absolutely! No doubt! Indeed!

Just as equally it is about Michael Moore, Al Franken, Jeanine Garofalo, Bill Moyers, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, Warren Beatty, Hilary Clinton, ...and the people who love them. :D

PS: How's that for appeal to authority?
 
Kindest Regards, Paladin!
Paladin said:
So good to see you Juan!
Thanks! I'm not quite back yet, just stealing an insomniac moment to sneak in.

Yes there is so much to ponder in all the quotes you have pulled, and I wonder who is the "You" that is defending a right position.
Ah, I left that intentionally vague. The quotes, all of which were good in my estimation, were pulled from different contributors, therefore the "you" is a collective one.

Further, what position exactly is being defended. It seems that multiple positions are mentioned by several people here, so forgive me if I find the question a bit vague.
You found the question as I intended. The idea was to provoke thought. The collective "you" was to strengthen the point that we all need to base our internal beliefs and philosophical outlooks on what we individually deem as right and correct.

It was Artistotle himself who said that the mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it. If more persons were able to at least do this, I should be quite inspired and joyus.
Certainly. Yet intellectual consideration is a far different thing from internal guidelines. There are cultural and social considerations; there is familial training and indoctrination; there are loyalties to family, friends and tribe; there are latent memories; there is formal education; there is religious education, indoctrination and inclination; there is aptitude spiritual and mental. There are other considerations I am likely overlooking.

However, as you have stated to have a proper, calm and hopefully edifying discussion there needs to be a structure that logic and reason can provide, if the "combatants" would or could adhere to the set parameters.
Learning the fallacies of logic can uncover attempts to prove a proposition with rhetorical pathos, as you mention.
This is so if one is engaged in a purely scholarly pursuit. If one is, say, wooing a lover, would one adhere strictly to logic and reason? If one is teaching a dog not to jump on someone, will one appeal to a dog's sense of logic and reason? If one is on a battlefield facing a mortal enemy, is one to resort solely to logic and reason? There is time and place for emotional response, just as there is time and place for logic and reason. I allow that the time and place for each is often confused; but I also allow that to leave one in favor of the other is not human nature, is not rational, and is not reasonable.

Emotion and logic are fundamentally at odds with each other, they are effectively the antithesis of each other. Not that they cannot co-exist, but that seldom can a person consistently balance them equally. Or so it seems to me. :D
 
juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards!

Special nod to InLove, thanks for the list!


Of course it is! Absolutely! No doubt! Indeed!

Just as equally it is about Michael Moore, Al Franken, Jeanine Garofalo, Bill Moyers, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, Warren Beatty, Hilary Clinton, ...and the people who love them. :D

PS: How's that for appeal to authority?

Who ARE these people anyhow...? I for one do not look to them for commentary on political leadership in thought anymore than I look to the Rushman. Ralph Nader..well, that's another story because he has a record of credibility in the public arena. But he's Lebanese, and well...that's a second or now third world nation huh... so what would he know anyhow ?

By the way...did you know that the Rushter is from Cape Girardeau Missouri which has the tallest TV tower in the USA, and is also reputedly to be the first site of a UFO crash in 1941...even before Roswell, New Mexico? What a stroke of long-term political genius to find and cultivate the talents of a Jewish alien clone from the midwest near where the strongest earthquake in U.S. history originated to slash and ravage the dreaded liberal establishment !

This thread is not a political argument Juan, and you are absolutely right about the application of mass psychololgy techniques through the media. We pretty all much agree that this now established reality is likely intellectually poisonous for anyone exposed to it for extended periods of time. The real question is what we might be able to do about this so that people might be able to attempt to think clearly once more...probably an impossible dream. So I, for one, don't participate very much in media consumption, other than to find out what the weather might be tomorrow...but then the weather's pretty much the same here everyday. I do listen to NPR though, and shortwave newscasts from overseas.

Since referring to the Nazis seems to be popular these days, remember that it was Josef Goebbels and Leni Reifenstahl that pioneered the use of mass media psychology in Germany in the 1930's to enable public acceptance of Hitler's rise to power. He and she found that if you repeatedly told or showed lies often enough and convincingly enough, a certain and increasing portion of the population would believe and implement policies to support the lies over time. It certainly worked in Germany, and it's certainly working on both sides of the political spectrum here. Hence, a profound and contentious schism in the body politic of the good ol' US of A.

Mine is not an argument that seeks to blame the messengers, but an argument that asks that the amplification of the messages be turned down somewhat so that messages of moderation might prevail over the long term. If I'm not mistaken, that was the original intent here. But in our commercially crazed world of communication, that's about as likely as the sun rising in the west tomorrow.

flow....:cool:
 
InLove said:
From wiki:

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also known as falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false dichotomy, false correlative, either/or dilemma or bifurcation), involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered. The two alternatives presented are often, though not always, the two extreme points on some spectrum. Instead of such extreme simplification and wishful thinking, considering the whole spectrum, as in fuzzy logic, may be more appropriate.
The false dilemma fallacy refers to misuse of the or operator. For another misuse of "or", see the false choice fallacy. For misuse of the and operator, see package-deal fallacy.
A false dilemma may not necessarily be limited to two choices; it may involve three possibilities, in which case it is known as a trifurcation, or more, in which case the dilemma may be more the result of accidental omission than deliberate intent.

InPeace,
InLove

Does Logical Fallacy have any Golden rules?

If not, I took the liberty of making some of my own.

The Golden Rules of logical fallacy
1. DO NOT JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER.
2. ALWAYS EXPLORE YOUR OPTIONS.
3. DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.
4. TREAT OTHERS LIKE YOU WANT TO BE TREATED.
5. THERE IS ALWAYS MORE THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A CAT :)
6. ONE PERSONS TREASURE MAY BE ANOTHER PERSONS TRASH.

well you get the idea.
Any one else?
 
YO-ELEVEN-11 said:
Does Logical Fallacy have any Golden rules?

If not, I took the liberty of making some of my own.

The Golden Rules of logical fallacy
1. DO NOT JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER.
2. ALWAYS EXPLORE YOUR OPTIONS.
3. DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.
4. TREAT OTHERS LIKE YOU WANT TO BE TREATED.
5. THERE IS ALWAYS MORE THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A CAT :)
6. ONE PERSONS TREASURE MAY BE ANOTHER PERSONS TRASH.

well you get the idea.
Any one else?

Okay YO, I have to admit you got me there, I cannot see how logical, practical truisms belong in a list of logical fallacies.;)
 
Paladin said:
Okay YO, I have to admit you got me there, I cannot see how logical, practical truisms belong in a list of logical fallacies.;)

Don't you pseuso-hate when the young are right...and when they use age old wisdom agin' us? :eek: :rolleyes: :eek: :D
 
Well, try this one on for size. :)

Golden Rules of Practical Trusims
1. Look before you leap
2. Stay the course
3. Do unto others before they do unto you.
4. Treat others Like you think they want to be treated
5. The only way to fish is with a fishing pole
6. Clean up your trash to keep the beggers away.

Both "Practical Trusims" and "Logical fallacies"
are in essence only as effective as the rules that govern them.
(There are rules that govern being "wrong" just as their are rules that govern being "right")

Stating that some thing is "Logic" is less "logical" than proving it is "logic". Having an opinion (even if it is "proven" wrong) anywhere on the spectrum is more "logical" than not having one at all.
(Being wrong can lead to learning) ( Discussing a "moot" point can lead to learning and knowing what a "moot" point is.):)

My point. (excuse the pun) :)

Interaction and growth has take place for "logical fallacy" to be transformed into Practical Trusim. ( In the begining the Heaven & Earth were "VOID" and out of that "VOID" came something.) (Something from nothing) imagine that.:)

So, We begin with golden rules of logical fallacy that seem to be more suited as practical truisms.

Thusly, to have logical fallacy is in fact logical and necessary to the growth and development of Practical Trusim. So, It may in fact be Logical that so many "Rush to be right" No matter how far apart on the spectrum that rush puts them or how "moot" some of the discussion may become. Thus spuring growth for mediation and then to understanding and ultimately PEACE.
:)
Now, with all that being said, and to throw another "Log"(Log-ic) :) on the fire.

Am I right or wrong?:D
 
Now, with all that being said, and to throw another "Log"(Log-ic) :) on the fire.

Am I right or wrong?:D

Quite right...now I have one for you...simplest of sayings but the hardest to follow...:eek:

"Practice what you preach"...a little harder than it sounds in life. ;)

Sometimes, it involves life...

v/r

Q
 
Back
Top