I hope the republicans get off their destructive high horse. Romney is right both sides need to work for the benefit of the whole nation, not just a select few. Allan
Matrix ** th3 beginning light On Nov 8, 2012 5:21 PM, "archytas" <[email protected]> wrote: > I was struck that Obama's acceptance speech was prime BA - we could > hardly disagree a word yet have no reason to believe any of it is > happening, will happen and is anything other than an appeal to those > of us with liberal biology - yet we hope it is true and don't think of > the real problems under its sway. Romney was a model democrat in > defeat, accepting the will of the people and praying for his > opponent. More BA as the House will already be beavering away to make > Obama a lame duck fit to serve with a rigsy sauce. It's all, as > Goffman had it, 'face work'. > People my age were all taught Julius Caesar was a great leader who > invaded Britain in 53 AD. In fact, he had been seen off the year > before and couldn't get his lads to board the boats. The barbarians > and Philistines of history turn out to have been much more civilised, > artistic and all round good guys compared with the Greek and Roman > slave-based economies who left us their songs of victory. > > On 7 Nov, 13:36, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > One probably needs a critical eye to spot why this paper is itself > > bullshit rigsy - but you seem to have got there from the summary > > above. Judging from the political adverts from the US elections we > > sampled here last night BS has won. Polish friends in the Warsaw Pact > > days, skilled in Soviet hogwash, were well aware the stuff was just > > for public consumption and that the World Bank guff I was supposed to > > disseminate just our form of it. They were quick to see the > > apparatchiks were becoming the entrepreneurchicks following the > > collapse of the wall. > > In Britain one of our MPs is going on an Aussie TV show of the kind > > where they dump you in the jungle with custard and hornets in your > > hair. There is much protest concerning her triviality. My own view > > is we should develop a control experiment from this and find out how > > many we can dispose of in this manner before we notice an adverse > > effect. As an added torture we could perhaps throw this philosopher > > in the mix! > > > > On 7 Nov, 11:19, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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] > > -- > > > > --
