DOCSLIB.ORG

Clear and Present Thinking

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Clear and Present Thinking Clear and Present Thinking A handbook in logic and rationality. Clear and Present Thinking Project Director: Brendan Myers (CEGEP Heritage College) Authors: Brendan Myers Charlene Elsby (Queen’s University) Kimberly Baltzer-Jaray (University of Waterloo) Nola Semczyszyn (Franklin & Marshall College) Editor / Proofreader: Natalie Evans (University of Guelph - Humber) Layout and Design: Nathaniel Winter-Hébert, Lana Winter-Hébert www. winterhebert.com Version 1.1 (21st May 2013) Northwest Passage Books This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ For all other enquiries, please visit brendanmyers.net Clear and Present Thinking A handbook in logic and rationality. Version 1.1 Northwest Passage Books Contents Contents Acknowledgments 2.2.2 Self-Awareness 39 Introduction 7 2.2.3 Health 40 2.2.4 Courage 40 Chapter One: Questions, Problems, 2.2.5 Healthy Skepticism 41 and World Views 15 2.2.6 Autonomy 41 2.2.7 Simplicity 42 1.1 Intellectual Environments 15 2.2.8 Precision 42 1.2 World Views 17 2.2.9 Patience 43 1.3 Framing Language 19 2.2.10 Consistency 43 1.4 Problems 20 2.2.11 Open-ness and Open-Mindedness 43 1.5 Observation 21 2.2.12 Asking for help 44 1.6 Questions 23 2.3 A few summary remarks for Chapter Two 45 1.7 Differing World Views 25 2.4 Exercises for Chapter Two 45 1.8 Value Programs 26 1.9 World Views, Civilization, and Conflict 27 Chapter Three: Basics of 1.10 Exercise for Chapter One 28 Argumentation 47 Chapter Two: Habits of Good and 3.1 Propositions 47 Bad Thinking 33 3.2 Parts of Arguments 49 3.3 Truth and Validity 50 2.1.1 Self-Interest 33 3.4 Types of Statements (Modern Logic) 50 2.1.2 Saving Face 34 3.5 Category Logic 53 2.1.3 Peer Pressure 34 3.6 Some Common Deductive Argument Forms 54 2.1.4 Stereotyping and Prejudice 35 3.6.1 Modus Ponens 55 2.1.5 Excessive Skepticism 36 3.6.2 Modus Tollens 56 2.1.6 Intellectual Laziness 36 3.6.3 Categorical Syllogisms 57 2.1.7 Relativism 37 3.6.4 Enthymemes 58 2.1.8 The Consequences of Bad Habits 39 3.6.5 Hypothetical Syllogism 58 2.2.1 Curiosity 39 3.6.6 Disjunctive Syllogism 60 Contents 3.6.7 Adjunction 61 4.24 Weak Analogy 77 3.6.8 Dilemmas 61 4.25 Exercises for Chapter Four 78 3.7 Induction 63 3.7.1 Inductive Generalization 64 Chapter Five: Reasonable Doubt 81 3.7.2 Statistical Syllogism 65 3.7.3 Induction by Shared Properties 66 5.1 What is reasonable doubt? 81 3.7.4 Induction by Shared Relations 67 5.2 Contradictory Claims 83 3.8 Scientific Method 67 5.3 Common Sense 84 3.9 Exercises for Chapter Three 68 5.4 Emotions, Instincts, and Intuitions 84 5.5 Looking at the evidence 86 Chapter Four: Fallacies 73 5.6 Conspiracy theories 87 5.7 Propaganda and Disinformation 88 4.1 Appeal to Authority 73 5.8 Doubting experts and professionals 81 4.2 Appeal to Force 73 5.9 Doubting your own eyes and ears 92 4.3 Appeal to Pity 74 5.10 Scams, Frauds, and Confidence Tricks 93 4.4 Appeal to Tradition 74 5.11 Doubting the Mass Media 96 4.5 Appeal to Novelty 74 5.12 Doubting the News 97 4.6 Appeal to Ignorance 74 5.13 Doubting Advertisments and Marketing 99 4.7 Appeal to Popularity 74 5.14 Exercises for Chapter Five 100 4.8 Accident Fallacy 74 4.9 Amphiboly 75 Chapter Six: Moral Reasoning 103 4.10 Fallacy of Composition 75 4.11 Fallacy of Division 75 6.1 Features of Moral Arguments 103 4.12 Red Herring 75 6.2 Moral Theories 104 4.13 Straw Man Fallacy 75 6.2.1 Utilitarianism 105 4.14 Abusing the Man 75 6.2.2 Deontology 107 4.15 False Cause 76 6.2.3 Virtue Theory / Areteology 108 4.16 Non Sequitor Fallacy 76 6.2.4 (Distributive) Justtice 110 4.17 Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle 76 6.3 Summary Remarks: Why can’t 4.18 Naturalistic Fallacy 76 we all just get along? 111 4.19 Loaded Question Fallacy 76 6.4 Exercises for Moral Reasoning 112 4.20 Equivocation 76 4.21 Begging the Question 77 4.22 False Dilemma 77 4.23 Hasty Generalization 77 Acknowledgments This project was financially supported by the dona- Gresham, Carol Waller, John Pritchard, Mark tions of over 700 people, through the Kickstarter.com Cumisky, Ed Kowalczewski, Tamarra Wallace, fundraising platform, including: Cheri Lovell, JD Ferries-Rowe, Maria Laine, Ralph Warnick, Cletus Stell, Lucas York, Jeff Chen, Michael Sena, Lisa Isaacson, Dag Hovden, William Linda Demissy, Jeffrey Wyndham, Jonathan Tapia, Andrews, Bill Dourte, Joseph de Leon, Douglas Carl Witty, Charlene Elsby, Jennifer Bezanson, Rod Bass, Dean Holbrough, Grant Haavaldsrud, Jussi MacPherson, Jennifer Hunt, Kadri Weiler, T. Scarlet Myllyluoma, Peter C. March, Deborah Spiesz, Evan Jory, Jennifer Hunt, Theo Geer, Teo Bishop, Grummell, Robert Carnochan, Angela Gallant, Julien St-Laurent, Tammy Longe, Holly Bird, Nic Kevin J. Maroney, Stephanie McMillen-Sherry, Daines, Gillian Watson, Chris Rybisky, Sydney Md. Muazzam B. Sham Khiruddin, David Lim, Mark Lancaster, Fernando Villasenor, Ruth Merriam, Wendelborn, Thomas Bourke, James Husum, Doug David Burch, Katt Taylor, Kevin L. Krakauer, Matan Eves, Bruce Becker, Bob Levin, Simon Lieutaud, Nassau, Jon Nebenfuhr, Bill Hovingh, Thomas Steven Hosford, Brian LaShomb, Colin Boswell, Darlington, Robin Powell, Peter Wolanski, Fabiola John Fox, Jason Piterak, Dirk Renckens, Sam Martin, Cequinne Reyamoir Sky, Robert Moore, Sabra, Bobby G Berney, Hannah Hiles, Albion Brian Baskerville, Claire Verney, Melissa Kean, Gould, Enrico Chir, Richard L Skubic, Corwin Melissa Reid, Ian McNab, Deirdre Hebert, Rory Samuelson, Zac Trolley, Melanie Meixner, Andrew Bowman, Jennifer Neal, Phil Kessler, Nick Warner, Bowser, Danny Witting, Melinda Reidinger, Hugh Long, Turlough Myers, Pat Bellavance, Graeme Barber, Matthew Slatkin, Barbara Jacobi, Chris Nichols, Michael Brown, Sarah Clements, Jennifer Mott, Melody Lake, Philipp Schneider, Stevie Miller, Marcos Gomez, Lisa Tamres, Karen Nicholas Pietrzak, Elizabeth A. Stout, Andrew Schreiber, Idalia Nelson, Debbie Carman, T Thorn Ma, Bernadette Martinez, Dominic Caplan, John Coyle, John Beckett, Selene Vega, Soli Johnson, Baksa, Todd Penland, Christian R. Meloche, Lianne Lavoie, Jennifer Ramon, Brian Figgins, Ivan Yagolnikov, John Merklinghaus, Matthew Amanda Strong, Lydia Ondrusek, Neil Negandhi, Habermehl, Burrell Crittendon, Scott Morris, Seto Konowa, Bart Salisbury, John Rahael, Nancy Sean Herron, Glenn Slotte, Björn Fonseca, Jay Allin, H Lynnea Johnson, Katherine Lawrence, Welshofer, David Fugate, Ty Sawyer, David Sosulski, Samuel Basa, Jim Burrows, Robert E. Stutts, Damion Moser, Thomas Brincefield, Paul Schultz, Daryn Tsuji, Deanna Victoria, Frederick Polgardy, Kevin Tibbs, Nicholas Dunne, Chris Felstead, Jim Elodie Crespel, Walter Erskine, Wilma Jandoc, Hill, Jayson Mackie, Matthew Suber, Sam Sgro, Nanci Quinn, Rachel Porteous, Teree McCormick, Mike Kallies, Garry Crossland, Michael Gradin, Bailey Shoemaker Richards, Ana de Montvert, John Bernardo, Elena Martinez, Justin Minnes, Brian Andrew, Nick Mailer, Gavin Lambert, Mike Ranti Junus, Mark Phelps, Susanne Huttner, Little, Antonina York, Laura Packer, Cynthia Andrea Hess, Simon Ward, Thomas Langenbach, Acknowledgments Alex Gibson, Philippe Chanelet, Skye Nathaniel C.D. Carson, Sheena MacIsaac, Andy Lawton, Schiefer, Julian Greene, Jennifer Gibson, James Rebecca Turner, Ivan Lewis, Ryoji Nakase, Deborah Foster, Kennita Watson, Robert Meeks, Corina Goldsmith, Truls Bjørvik, James R. Hall, William Thornton, Hilary Sadowsky, Eric Hortop, Joann Healy, Gareth Thomas, Todd Showalter, Russ Neff, Keesey, Alison Lilly, Millard Arnold IV, Adam Daw, Brittany Wilbert, Tobias Ammann, Mj Patterson, Garth Elliott, Mary Henderson, Mike Mallory, JD Joe Salek, Mostafa Faghfoury, Caroline Kenner, Hickey, Andrew Dulson, Stanley Yamane, Aurora Joshua Smith, Homam Alattar, Mara Georges, Jade Pichette, Jennifer M Shaw, Kami Landy, Bryan Bonifacio, Chad Hobson, Ryoichi Kinoshita, Gaston Croteau, Seonaid Lee, Dan Pierson, David O’Brien, Glenn McCrimmon, Susan Grant- Adrienne Dandy, Ealasaid haas, Roland Conybeare, Suttie, Mike Smith, Benjamin Wade. William Blumberg, Regina P. Wade, Christye Gruen, Maria Bement, Michelle Bar-Evan, Raja Thiagarajan, Nicholas George, Larry Wood, Kerry Michalski-Russell, Michael Green, Paul Fischer, Kiran Reddy, Thomas King, Edward Hinkey, Bryce Bederka, Martin Gray, Nick Allott, Jonas Schiött, Sara Korn, Jessica Heaston, Dan Reshef, Kevin Chin, Donald & Sabrina Sutherland, Derric Pruitt, Ben Rossi, Chris Rose, Deanna Jones, David Churn, Solomon Matthews, Judith Wouk, Gary Gibson, Rob C. Agnew, Robert Young, Kay M Purcell, John Benner Jr, Mark Bisignano, Stephen Antonello, Ed Deeley, Jochen Schmiedbauer, Andrew Kwon, John Moreau, James E. Donnelly, Vanessa Smallbon, Niels Nellissen, Elaine Chen Jing, Russell Keenan, Nunzio Bizness, Rochelle McCune, Michelle MacAlpine, Rob Harshman, Kevin McKenzie, David Monreal i Prat, Taylor Judd, Charles Petras, Chrissandra Porter, Katherine Terban, Leon Higley, Yves Lacombe, Martin Kleen, Nathan Malik, Geoff Coxhead, Joe & Alisa Roy, S R Van Keuren, Alex Basson, Carey Head, Carol Bean, Margaret Colville, Valerie Voigt, Leon Samadi, Bruce Spurr, Steven Moy, Elemental Book & Curiosity Shop Inc., David Govoni, Jacob Thias, 9 Introduction “Thinking … is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas.” – Rudolph Steiner. 07 What is thinking? It may seem strange to begin a logic information and knowledge, aware of memories, and textbook with this question. ‘Thinking’ is perhaps aware of likely future probabilities and so on. Thinking the most intimate and personal thing that people do. is a first-order phenomenological insight: it’s a bit like Yet the more you ‘think’ about thinking, the more knowing what the colour ‘red’ looks like, or knowing mysterious it can appear.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center
    Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center Ad hominem (Argument to the person): Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. We would take her position on child abuse more seriously if she weren’t so rude to the press. Ad populum appeal (appeal to the public): Draws on whatever people value such as nationality, religion, family. A vote for Joe Smith is a vote for the flag. Alleged certainty: Presents something as certain that is open to debate. Everyone knows that… Obviously, It is obvious that… Clearly, It is common knowledge that… Certainly, Ambiguity and equivocation: Statements that can be interpreted in more than one way. Q: Is she doing a good job? A: She is performing as expected. Appeal to fear: Uses scare tactics instead of legitimate evidence. Anyone who stages a protest against the government must be a terrorist; therefore, we must outlaw protests. Appeal to ignorance: Tries to make an incorrect argument based on the claim never having been proven false. Because no one has proven that food X does not cause cancer, we can assume that it is safe. Appeal to pity: Attempts to arouse sympathy rather than persuade with substantial evidence. He embezzled a million dollars, but his wife had just died and his child needed surgery. Begging the question/Circular Logic: Proof simply offers another version of the question itself. Wrestling is dangerous because it is unsafe. Card stacking: Ignores evidence from the one side while mounting evidence in favor of the other side. Users of hearty glue say that it works great! (What is missing: How many users? Great compared to what?) I should be allowed to go to the party because I did my math homework, I have a ride there and back, and it’s at my friend Jim’s house.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER XXX. of Fallacies. Section 827. After Examining the Conditions on Which Correct Thoughts Depend, It Is Expedient to Clas
    CHAPTER XXX. Of Fallacies. Section 827. After examining the conditions on which correct thoughts depend, it is expedient to classify some of the most familiar forms of error. It is by the treatment of the Fallacies that logic chiefly vindicates its claim to be considered a practical rather than a speculative science. To explain and give a name to fallacies is like setting up so many sign-posts on the various turns which it is possible to take off the road of truth. Section 828. By a fallacy is meant a piece of reasoning which appears to establish a conclusion without really doing so. The term applies both to the legitimate deduction of a conclusion from false premisses and to the illegitimate deduction of a conclusion from any premisses. There are errors incidental to conception and judgement, which might well be brought under the name; but the fallacies with which we shall concern ourselves are confined to errors connected with inference. Section 829. When any inference leads to a false conclusion, the error may have arisen either in the thought itself or in the signs by which the thought is conveyed. The main sources of fallacy then are confined to two-- (1) thought, (2) language. Section 830. This is the basis of Aristotle's division of fallacies, which has not yet been superseded. Fallacies, according to him, are either in the language or outside of it. Outside of language there is no source of error but thought. For things themselves do not deceive us, but error arises owing to a misinterpretation of things by the mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Fitting Words Textbook
    FITTING WORDS Classical Rhetoric for the Christian Student TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface: How to Use this Book . 1 Introduction: The Goal and Purpose of This Book . .5 UNIT 1 FOUNDATIONS OF RHETORIC Lesson 1: A Christian View of Rhetoric . 9 Lesson 2: The Birth of Rhetoric . 15 Lesson 3: First Excerpt of Phaedrus . 21 Lesson 4: Second Excerpt of Phaedrus . 31 UNIT 2 INVENTION AND ARRANGEMENT Lesson 5: The Five Faculties of Oratory; Invention . 45 Lesson 6: Arrangement: Overview; Introduction . 51 Lesson 7: Arrangement: Narration and Division . 59 Lesson 8: Arrangement: Proof and Refutation . 67 Lesson 9: Arrangement: Conclusion . 73 UNIT 3 UNDERSTANDING EMOTIONS: ETHOS AND PATHOS Lesson 10: Ethos and Copiousness .........................85 Lesson 11: Pathos ......................................95 Lesson 12: Emotions, Part One ...........................103 Lesson 13: Emotions—Part Two ..........................113 UNIT 4 FITTING WORDS TO THE TOPIC: SPECIAL LINES OF ARGUMENT Lesson 14: Special Lines of Argument; Forensic Oratory ......125 Lesson 15: Political Oratory .............................139 Lesson 16: Ceremonial Oratory ..........................155 UNIT 5 GENERAL LINES OF ARGUMENT Lesson 17: Logos: Introduction; Terms and Definitions .......169 Lesson 18: Statement Types and Their Relationships .........181 Lesson 19: Statements and Truth .........................189 Lesson 20: Maxims and Their Use ........................201 Lesson 21: Argument by Example ........................209 Lesson 22: Deductive Arguments .........................217
    [Show full text]
  • Bharati Volume 4
    SARASVATI Bharati Volume 4 Gold bead; Early Dynastic necklace from the Royal Cemetery; now in the Leeds collection y #/me raed?sI %/-e A/hm! #N/m! Atu?vm! , iv/Èaim?Sy r]it/ e/dm! -ar?t jn?m! . (Vis'va_mitra Ga_thina) RV 3.053.12 I have made Indra glorified by these two, heaven and earth, and this prayer of Vis'va_mitra protects the race of Bharata. [Made Indra glorified: indram atus.t.avam-- the verb is the third preterite of the casual, I have caused to be praised; it may mean: I praise Indra, abiding between heaven and earth, i.e. in va_kdevi Sarasvati the firmament]. Dr. S. Kalyanaraman Babasaheb (Umakanta Keshav) Apte Smarak Samiti Bangalore 2003 PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com SARASVATI: Bharati by S. Kalyanaraman Copyright Dr. S. Kalyanaraman Publisher: Baba Saheb (Umakanta Keshav) Apte Smarak Samiti, Bangalore Price: (India) Rs. 500 ; (Other countries) US $50 . Copies can be obtained from: S. Kalyanaraman, 3 Temple Avenue, Srinagar Colony, Chennai, Tamilnadu 600015, India email: [email protected] Tel. + 91 44 22350557; Fax 24996380 Baba Saheb (Umakanta Keshav) Apte Smarak Samiti, Yadava Smriti, 55 First Main Road, Seshadripuram, Bangalore 560020, India Tel. + 91 80 6655238 Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti, Annapurna, 528 C Saniwar Peth, Pune 411030 Tel. +91 020 4490939 Library of Congress cataloguing in publication data Kalyanaraman, Srinivasan. Sarasvati/ S. Kalyanaraman Includes bibliographical references and index 1.River Sarasvati. 2. Indian Civilization. 3. R.gveda Printed in India at K. Joshi and Co., 1745/2 Sadashivpeth, Near Bikardas Maruti Temple, Pune 411030, Bharat ISBN 81-901126-4-0 FIRST PUBLISHED: 2003 2 PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com About the Author Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I
    Essential Logic Ronald C. Pine Chapter 4: INFORMAL FALLACIES I All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas. Adolf Hitler Until the habit of thinking is well formed, facing the situation to discover the facts requires an effort. For the mind tends to dislike what is unpleasant and so to sheer off from an adequate notice of that which is especially annoying. John Dewey, How We Think Introduction In everyday speech you may have heard someone refer to a commonly accepted belief as a fallacy. What is usually meant is that the belief is false, although widely accepted. In logic, a fallacy refers to logically weak argument appeal (not a belief or statement) that is widely used and successful. Here is our definition: A logical fallacy is an argument that is usually psychologically persuasive but logically weak. By this definition we mean that fallacious arguments work in getting many people to accept conclusions, that they make bad arguments appear good even though a little commonsense reflection will reveal that people ought not to accept the conclusions of these arguments as strongly supported. Although logicians distinguish between formal and informal fallacies, our focus in this chapter and the next one will be on traditional informal fallacies.1 For our purposes, we can think of these fallacies as "informal" because they are most often found in the everyday exchanges of ideas, such as newspaper editorials, letters to the editor, political speeches, advertisements, conversational disagreements between people in social networking sites and Internet discussion boards, and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Fallacies and Distraction Techniques
    Sample Activity Learning Critical Thinking Through Astronomy: Logical Fallacies and Distraction Techniques Joe Heafner [email protected] Version 2017-09-13 STUDENT NOTE PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT. 2017-09-13 Activity0105 CONTENTS Contents QuestionsSample Activity1 Materials Needed 1 Points To Remember 1 1 Fallacies and Distractions1 Student1.1 Lying................................................. Version 1 1.2 Shifting The Burden.........................................2 1.3 Appeal To Emotion.........................................3 1.4 Appeal To The Past.........................................4 1.5 Appeal To Novelty..........................................5 1.6 Appeal To The People (Appeal To The Masses, Appeal To Popularity).............6 1.7 Appeal To Logic...........................................7 1.8 Appeal To Ignorance.........................................8 1.9 Argument By Repetition....................................... 10 1.10 Attacking The Person........................................ 11 1.11 Confirmation Bias.......................................... 12 1.12 Strawman Argument or Changing The Subject.......................... 13 1.13 False Premise............................................. 14 1.14 Hasty Generalization......................................... 15 1.15 Loaded Question........................................... 16 1.16 Feigning Offense........................................... 17 1.17 False Dilemma............................................ 17 1.18 Appeal To Authority........................................
    [Show full text]
  • 334 CHAPTER 7 INFORMAL FALLACIES a Deductive Fallacy Is
    CHAPTER 7 INFORMAL FALLACIES A deductive fallacy is committed whenever it is suggested that the truth of the conclusion of an argument necessarily follows from the truth of the premises given, when in fact that conclusion does not necessarily follow from those premises. An inductive fallacy is committed whenever it is suggested that the truth of the conclusion of an argument is made more probable by its relationship with the premises of the argument, when in fact it is not. We will cover two kinds of fallacies: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. An argument commits a formal fallacy if it has an invalid argument form. An argument commits an informal fallacy when it has a valid argument form but derives from unacceptable premises. A. Fallacies with Invalid Argument Forms Consider the following arguments: (1) All Europeans are racist because most Europeans believe that Africans are inferior to Europeans and all people who believe that Africans are inferior to Europeans are racist. (2) Since no dogs are cats and no cats are rats, it follows that no dogs are rats. (3) If today is Thursday, then I'm a monkey's uncle. But, today is not Thursday. Therefore, I'm not a monkey's uncle. (4) Some rich people are not elitist because some elitists are not rich. 334 These arguments have the following argument forms: (1) Some X are Y All Y are Z All X are Z. (2) No X are Y No Y are Z No X are Z (3) If P then Q not-P not-Q (4) Some E are not R Some R are not E Each of these argument forms is deductively invalid, and any actual argument with such a form would be fallacious.
    [Show full text]
  • PAGANISM a Brief Overview of the History of Paganism the Term Pagan Comes from the Latin Paganus Which Refers to Those Who Lived in the Country
    PAGANISM A brief overview of the history of Paganism The term Pagan comes from the Latin paganus which refers to those who lived in the country. When Christianity began to grow in the Roman Empire, it did so at first primarily in the cities. The people who lived in the country and who continued to believe in “the old ways” came to be known as pagans. Pagans have been broadly defined as anyone involved in any religious act, practice, or ceremony which is not Christian. Jews and Muslims also use the term to refer to anyone outside their religion. Some define paganism as a religion outside of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism; others simply define it as being without a religion. Paganism, however, often is not identified as a traditional religion per se because it does not have any official doctrine; however, it has some common characteristics within its variety of traditions. One of the common beliefs is the divine presence in nature and the reverence for the natural order in life. In the strictest sense, paganism refers to the authentic religions of ancient Greece and Rome and the surrounding areas. The pagans usually had a polytheistic belief in many gods but only one, which represents the chief god and supreme godhead, is chosen to worship. The Renaissance of the 1500s reintroduced the ancient Greek concepts of Paganism. Pagan symbols and traditions entered European art, music, literature, and ethics. The Reformation of the 1600s, however, put a temporary halt to Pagan thinking. Greek and Roman classics, with their focus on Paganism, were accepted again during the Enlightenment of the 1700s.
    [Show full text]
  • The Business of Life and Death, Vol. 1: Values and Economies
    The Business of Life and Death, Vol. 1: Values and Economies Collected Philosophical Essays by Giorgio Baruchello, PhD Gatineau, Quebec Canada Published by Northwest Passage Books, 2018. Complete Table of Contents Part I - Introductions The Cancer Stage of Capitalism Value Wars From Crisis to Cure Part II - Applications What Is To Be Conserved? An Appraisal of Political Conservatism Good And Bad Tourism Paul Krugman’s Banking Metastases Social Philosophy and Oncology On the Mission of Public Universities Part III - Implications Adam Smith, Historical and Rhetorical Cornelius Castoriadis and the Crux of Adam Smith’s Liberty The Price of Tranquility: Cruelty and Death in Adam Smith’s Liberalism Adam Smith Can Never Be Wrong Five Books of Economic History A History of Economics Epilogue: Good and Bad Capitalism This Sample Includes: Introduction 2 What Is To Be Conserved? An Appraisal of Political Conservatism 9 Copyright © 2018 by Giorgio Baruchello. All rights reserved. This sample of the text may be shared freely provided it is not modified in any way, not used for the reader’s commercial purposes, and that the author’s name remains attached to the work. 1 Baruchello / The Business of Life and Death, vol 1: Values and Economies The Business of Life and Death, Vol. 1: Values and Economies Introduction A direct descendant of the Ontario Agricultural College, the University of Guelph can boast among the members of its vast academic family two great Canadian intellectuals, who have never been afraid of tackling public affairs and economic matters with unswerving courage, subtle acumen and dazzling style. The first one is John Kenneth—“Ken”—Galbraith (1908–2006).
    [Show full text]
  • 35. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected]
    Kennesaw State University DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University Sexy Technical Communications Open Educational Resources 3-1-2016 35. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected] Cherie Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/oertechcomm Part of the Technical and Professional Writing Commons Recommended Citation Miller, Steve and Miller, Cherie, "35. Logic: Common Fallacies" (2016). Sexy Technical Communications. 35. http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/oertechcomm/35 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources at DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sexy Technical Communications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve and Cherie Miller Sexy Technical Communication Home Logic and Logical Fallacies Taken with kind permission from the book Why Brilliant People Believe Nonsense by J. Steve Miller and Cherie K. Miller Brilliant People Believe Nonsense [because]... They Fall for Common Fallacies The dull mind, once arriving at an inference that flatters the desire, is rarely able to retain the impression that the notion from which the inference started was purely problematic. ― George Eliot, in Silas Marner In the last chapter we discussed passages where bright individuals with PhDs violated common fallacies. Even the brightest among us fall for them. As a result, we should be ever vigilant to keep our critical guard up, looking for fallacious reasoning in lectures, reading, viewing, and especially in our own writing. None of us are immune to falling for fallacies.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Argue Without Being Argumentative
    ENG 106: Composition II Learning Unit 9: Audio How to Argue Without Being Argumentative We should first of all begin by explaining the title of this lecture: “How to Argue Without Being Argumentative.” Whenever people think of “arguing” or “having an argument,” many of them have the wrong idea in mind. They think of people in an argument as disputing, contradicting each other, and even calling each other names, until gradually (or not so gradually) the argument gets louder and louder until the participants are yelling at each other and no longer even listening to the other side. In the popular view, this is what it means to be “argumentative,” and anyone who is arguing is by definition argumentative! However, in the academic view, this is not really what an argument is supposed to be like. An argument is simply a discussion in which statements called “premises” are joined together in order to reach a “conclusion.” These premises are supported by different types of “evidence.” So, for example, if one person says, “The President is doing a great job” and another says, “No, he isn’t” and the first says, “Yes, he is” and the second says, “No, he isn’t, you idiot”—these two people are not really arguing, even though it may sound like it. They are simply disputing, expressing their opinions, and contradicting each other. In order for this dispute to qualify as a real argument, each participant would need to offer premises which lead to the conclusion he or she wants to reach, either that the President is doing a good job or that the President is not doing a good job.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallacy and Argumentational Vice
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 10 May 22nd, 9:00 AM - May 25th, 5:00 PM Fallacy and argumentational vice Andrew Aberdein Florida Institute of Technology, Department of Humanities and Communication Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Aberdein, Andrew, "Fallacy and argumentational vice" (2013). OSSA Conference Archive. 3. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/3 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Fallacy and argumentational vice ANDREW ABERDEIN Department of Humanities and Communication Florida Institute of Technology 150 West University Boulevard, Melbourne Florida 32901-6975, U.S.A. [email protected] ABSTRACT: If good argument is virtuous, then fallacies are vicious. Yet fallacies cannot just be identified with vices, since vices are dispositional properties of agents whereas fallacies are types of argument. Rather, if the normativity of good argumentation is explicable in terms of virtues, we should expect the wrongness of fallacies to be explicable in terms of vices. This approach is defended through case studies of several fallacies, with particular emphasis on the ad hominem. KEYWORDS: ad hominem, argumentational vice, argumentational virtue, fallacy, virtue argumentation 1. A VIRTUE THEORY OF ARGUMENTATION Several authors have recently begun to apply virtue theory to argumentation (for example, Cohen, 2009; Aberdein, 2010; Correia, 2012). This paper explores how this approach copes with the analysis and appraisal of fallacies.
    [Show full text]