Reasoning and Logic

The only thing I can say is that I got impressed! Now, I have to sit down an read it slowly....

Good topic but I seem to drift off before the list of 17 types sinks in. If I recall correctly my logic class used a book by someone named Copi (might not be correct). I think he distilled the list down to about 5 types of fallacies. I'm sure the above list is good and correct, but a list of 5 was easier to grasp on a single reading.

I agree. But I find that once you get past the first 4 or 5, which are very wordy and slightly confusing, the rest of the list is pretty straight forward and clearer.

Logic and Reason.... Things that rarely exist anymore.

I've seen "straw man" and "either-or" quite frequently.

Straw Man is particularly frustrating to listen to. It's like someone putting words in your mouth. The point you were making is buried by the distraction inserted into the argument.

How ironic. No sooner do I mention the "straw man" fallacy in the post above... than it happens to me in another thread.

Here is an example of straw man, if you're interested. Post 121 and 122:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/754192/Re-A-Net-to-Catch-Falling-Sports-Fans

(not sure if I made that an active link, properly)

Is there a term for going after another member in a different thread.

At least you started one instead of hijacking someone else's.

I can assure you, AH is not in a gang. He doesn't spend much time on foolishness. And if you want to debate him, you'd better sharpen your pencil. I've tried.....................somehow I never walked away feeling like I had won.

Sometimes AH and I agree, sometimes we don't. Nobody here is unworthy of anyone else's respect. No opinion is more important, or less important, than anyone else's.

They are opinions.

When the bickerers start making demands, this moderation team comes in.

Then it's really not fun.

What are you talking about? You got all of that, out of me pointing to one of his comments as an example of something cited in this thread? Wow.

For one, his comment is in fact a textbook example of what I said it is. If he reads the definition I'm referring to, and the two relevant posts, I'm guessing he'll agree. No big deal.

Two, where in my comment did you find me calling him a member of a gang?

Three, I'm not "going after him". My original statement in this thread states that these are things that we are all guilty of; myself included.

Four... hijacking? What exactly is the definition of that? You mean like coming into someone's thread, and every comment is hassling the OP? And again, what are you talking about?

Five... demands? What demands did I just make?

Six... get off my case, dude. You really don't like me, or my opinions, do you? Are my opinions exempt from your "no opinion is more important than anyone else's" rule? Right now, you appear a bit obsessed.

Now you're ruining my thread. Go away if you don't like it.

Okay

I'd have to agree with your "three" as this surly post shirley embodies most of the 'devices' and 'convenience' in interpretation, outlined in the OP.

"All guilty of" - not so much. That you linked to your own comment as an example relevant to the OP - Your choice. That you don't like people 'fallowing the links thereafter "research" then referencing thereby revealed comments, is a logical outcome of your own lack of skills, or application of diligence.

You're not dealing with a bunch of placard waving morons - but an audience well able to click on 'find in discussion'.^[1]

Putting aside 'hijacking', (4) which logically invites discussion on your track record, and apparent obliviousness of it; unless it is happening to you, (5) shows equal convenient obliviousness to the inferred 'standards of logic' you opine about in the OP, then totally forsake in (6).

(6) is a mass of illogical emotional assumptions based in your opinion of another's motivation. You seem to really object to the concept that your opinions are 'open to discussion'.

Perhaps this is due to the illogical wish rooted in "my thread".

The reality is; you posted in a public forum. "Here is my circuitous riposte, inc thinly veiled attack, on what has been written (in response to my previous unsubstantiated opining and slanderous innuendos, directed at ^{_{(never named}}) CR4 members - Discuss"

And as anyone with a scintilla of logic skills would say "see [1] You should have thought of that earlier"

Before you say "Go away if you don't like it." Let me say; I'm loving it

Interesting

Excellent observation.

All I can say, is that I believe you are violation of copyright law.

I'm not going to respond until I see what the moderators do with this thread.

Please refer to CR4 FAQ in the future.

Oh brother.

I'm not picking on you. Nor am I doing anything silly like hitting the report button.

They take this stuff very seriously, people have been booted for it.

Welcome to the limelight..............................Welcome to the gang.

I went through a period of trying to make CR4 the way I wanted it in the beginning. I just skipped the members and went straight after admin. I've learned to like it just the way it is......................................they have decided to tolerate me............at least for now.

Well... if they've got a problem with it, I can just replace the offensive text with a link to the website.

Logical Fallacies Classifications

Might as well have a say before admin wet their pants.

I once copied out a puzzle to amuse members. I'm sure it did, because I typed half of it wrong ! I wasn't giving a toss about the copy issue, not that it would have mattered with my screw up . Admin kindly let me correct it, and the original source (who I think I'd named) didn't sue me. Shame no bugger ever had the time to waste on solving it !

Where was I ? Oh, yeah, you could have just sent a revision to admin - summation plus link. It'd save them time and help avoid any pr*** complaining that you'd complimented their work by repeating it. I'm sure it's all very interesting, but I've probably had my blabquota on this one.

I think therefore I am, clearly not doing much practical right now

The idea of a copyright is preventing third parties from profiting from our work or the honors that might be associated to a paper. As you mentioned the author´s name and the title of the publication, YOU DID NOT infringe any the author´s rights. There are also "Uses" covered under limitations and exceptions to copyright, such as fair use, which do not require permission from the copyright owner. All other uses require permission. Voilà Monsieur Poirot! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

From CR4 FAQ's:

12) Can I post copyrighted material?

If you own the copyright, then the answer is "yes".

If you do not own the copyright, then limited presentation of material is permissible via the "Fair Use" Doctrine. A reasonable rule-of-thumb is that copying three paragraphs from a normal-length news article or editorial (approximately 300 words) is acceptable as long as attribution is provided; however, this is not a hard-and-fast rule. If you're unsure about what to do, then don't post the material. If you do not know the copyright status of a given block of text, assume it is owned by someone else.

Copying and pasting complete copyrighted articles without permission from the copyright holder is categorically prohibited by copyright laws. Copyright infringement can expose both you and CR4 to financial liability. Please do not do this. Otherwise, the CR4 moderation team will be forced to remove your post and possibly ban you from the site.

Copying and pasting copyrighted images without permission is the same as using copyrighted text. It is a violation of intellectual property laws. If you want to use an image, get permission from the copyright holder first. When in doubt, don't post the image.

Copying and pasting complete copyrighted articles without permission from the copyright holder is categorically prohibited by copyright laws

Very precisely and correctly put. On this occasion, I think no injury to the source has been caused, and this discussion has served to enhance the original authors status.

Forgive me for saying, but the sage advice you give is an almost exact replica of a statement made by Chris Leonard some time ago. Certainly worth re-stating, even if you are unaware of Chris's post on this matter. Just a little ironic observation ferom blighty, which I hope you take in the light-hearted spirit it's intended

Thanks, lyn, for sharing this information.

Whether the material's being profited from or not it's not permissible on CR4 to take such a large piece of content from a copyrighted resource. The post is about 1,200 words including the intro.

I'll go in and edit it to the acceptable length and link to the rest of the types provided in another comment.

Sorry, but by editing the content you are infringing copyrights! And that is a contradiction, cause you are doing what you said should not be done!

I only edited the user's post for length. I did not rewrite the original content in any way. I just cut out anything after the first three paragraphs and linked to the original document. Feel free to check out the post.

I really do not want to argue about this, but the copyrights protect the entire document as well as any part of it, which means in this case you are an accessory to Out of the Box!

If copyrights are such a big deal (even if fairly used - as in this case), you should have removed the entire document and left a hyperlink to the source*, as the OP mentioned in another posting.

* no need to say nobody would have read.

So, let´s cool down, enjoy life, share experience and learn a lot from each other! Carpe diam!

As an admin ensuring the post adheres to CR4 rules I trimmed it down to the acceptable length. This protects both the CR4 website and its users. We have been threatened with lawsuits by copyright owners before (both via email and written cease and desist orders that came via regular mail). It's easier to avoid that.

He has attributed the work. It is a rather large quote. But a fair use claim will likely stand.

Milo

At this moment, I'll fully admit that I'm talking out my butt... because it's just a supposition. But it seems to me that the intent of copyright laws is to prevent someone profiting, in any way, from another's work. That's clearly not the case here, as the text is only offered as a point of discussion, just as it would be if any of us would go to the link I provided, that leads to the exact same text which is freely available, with the author and publication noted in both cases. And I'm not profiting intentionally, nor unintentionally. I'm also of the opinion that a fair use claim will stand in this particular case.

In either case, I'll abide by whatever Admin directs me to do, if or when they contact me, regarding this issue.

I think it is a non issue.

I think that it was a great post. I teach a shorter list of fallacies in my MBA critical thinking class. This is an excellent resource.

Milo

17 categories is quite a long list, I agree. That's splitting some very fine hairs, in shades of meanings. BruceFlorida, in post #2, mentioned he was aware of a list of 5 classifications. I assume that's more like what you're talking about.

But I do find it an interesting subject. I'll never understand human reasoning. But at least I can try to get closer to it.

What proof have you presented that logic is even remotely related to science?

Ummmm .... Mr. Spock??

Beam me up Scottie!

Maybe I'm just a cause and effect type, myself.

cause and effect type, huh!

......too practical

Logic, science, reason, mathematics, philosophy, kebabs - all invented by the same people.

What about the paradoxes, which are quite often mistaken to be fallacies ?

Expansion of water above and below 4°C, for example? Logic may not be that great after all ?

Sometimes I have the feeling that many people posting here in CR4 enjoy more tarring and feathering rather than sharing knowledge. That is a real pity! Let me remind you a text (there is no copyright for it) written some time ago in a big book (actually not the phone book!): Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone! Carpe diam!

I often wonder what people who say 'Seize the Day' in Latin, would do, if they actually seized one. I think it might be a bit like the dog who finally caches a car.

It would also help if the God Squad could speel Lutan

The extended quote goes;

Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero

Seize the Day, putting as little trust as possible in the future

It's not actually that 'inspiring' - except for perhaps a base jumper.

well, it´s like seing the glass half full ... or half empty! I go for the first half of the sentence! Carpe diam!

Good on ya! - Roger will probably have the Prague lot name a satellite after you - assuming they forgive him for TBMB

Diem, not diam.

It's always difficult getting a good translation that reflects the original meaning in all its' nuances, and "seize the day" might not be best. "Enjoy the moment" is a possible alternative.

But well spotted. Original quotes should not be mis-spelt, not even once let alone twice thrice.

Good point: you are right, I should have written DIEM, but as I speak and write EN, ES. PT, DE, FR and IT, sometimes my brain get´s a little confused! sorry for that.

Well done, lad, quite admirable. That's two and a half more languages than me. And since the word in Iberian languages (apart from Basque) is 'Dia', you are forgiven.

This poor being does not deserve your mercy Holzfeller!

Ummmm - thanks for the search - I feel a new Avatar coming on

The Mosaic of the dog tied to a rope is to be seen at the entrance of a house in the ruins Pompeii not far away from Naples, Italy. It means (and warns) there is a watch-dog in the house. I happened to see it about 4 weeks ago during my holidays. There are still many different types of mosaics perfectly preserved: some represent tales of battles, other scenes from the daily life;

Here you can see a group of young ladies doing sports, wearing bikinis!

Ancient Pompeians were quite concerned about their male attributes, which are represented in all imaginable forms and uses. One mosaic in particular catches the interest of ALL visitors: it depicts a man called Priapus* weighting his huge p**is on a scale! IT´S UP TO YOU TO FOLLOW THIS LINK: these picture contain material that may be very disturbing to some people (AT LEAST, ME!): http://www.google.com.ar/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1566/200607/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1566-290653.jpg&sa=X&ei=KWgtTvSGKMTf0QH57ajkDg&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNHNYX8nNwV7OTLtQybWGYB4vagBuw

* A medical condition is called Priapismus. Guess after whom it is called that way!

I'm late in coming

But I had to subscribe

Just to watch OBE, who cannot seem to stay out of his own way

GangMember

A topic like this can lead to religious discussion, one I have to stay away from.

Because logic & reason & religion are mutually exclusive? _{(oooh, an angel)}

How about 'Correlation does not infer causation.' It's shorter and no copyright! (yet)