I suspect the ghost of Diogenes the Cynic is still looking for an honest man.
On Nov 5, 10:41 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > This from an academic article sent to me on 'bullshit attacks'. > > Walter Carnielli > We want to argue that falling into a specific deceptive reasoning > which > we call bullshit attack is not anything irrational from our side, but > rather a > rational response from an opponent maneuver, and that the entire > episode can > bee seen as a game, where logic and a certain principle of rational > discussion > play essential roles. Indeed, an opponent may act coercively into our > reasoning > process by using irrelevant facts or assertions, and by telling half > truths in such > a way that we feel forced to “complete” the story in a way that > interest the > opponent, perhaps contrary to our own interests. > Even to define what is “to deceive” is not easy. The act of deceiving > would > have to be intentional, and to involve causing a belief - but what > about acting > as to prevent a false belief to be revised by the other person? And to > act as to > make the other person to cease to have a true belief, or to prevent > the person > from acquiring a certain true belief? Of course one can deceive by > gestures, by > irony and also by just making questions. So there seems to be no > universally > accepted definition of “deceiving” yet; we assume currently a > definition stated > in [17]: > To deceive = to intentionally cause another person to have or > continue > to have a false belief that is truly believed to be false by the > person > intentionally causing the false belief by bringing about evidence on > the basis of which the other person has or continues to have that > false > belief. > > Summary. This paper intends to open a discussion on how certain > dangerous kinds > of deceptive reasoning can be defined, in which way it is achieved in > a discussion, > and which would be the strategies for defense against such deceptive > attacks on the > light of some principles accepted as fundamental for rationality and > logic. > > Last lines (after much on Tarski and Godel) - Starting from the > understanding that what I am proposing here is not to use methods of > formal or informal logic to analyze fallacies, but to pay due > attention to principles that also affect logic, discerning the reasons > why we > succumb under a bullshit attack may help us to understand why we > commit > other illusions of reasoning. > > Anyone interested can get the full paper from me by email. > > On a Theoretical Analysis of Deceiving: How > to Resist a Bullshit Attack > Walter Carnielli > GTAL/CLE and Department of Philosophy–IFCH, State University of > Campinas, > [email protected] --
