LOGIC.

                                                         







                                                                  LOGIC.

                                          IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, 
                      AND VIEWERS OF THE BIG BANG THEORY.

Image result for BIG BANG THEORY- PUBLIC DOMAIN IMAGES


This is a new category, and will be updated from time to time.


The subject matter will focus on current issues, and how many of those who give opinions and commentary in Public Forums often violate the basic rules of Logic and Critical Thinking.  Often this is done so casually, that it implies a disdain for proper intellectual discourse.

All examples are not meant to be considered true to life, they are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Some of the definitions I will use are my own, others can be found in Textbooks, Websites and Essays that are used to teach Logic and Deductive Reasoning.  If a definition is of my own creation, I will indicate it.

Lets get started.

TOPIC-  Gun control laws.

Reporter- "Senator, results from National Crime Reports indicate that your State, has one of the highest rates of violent crime and murder convictions in the nation. Do you think that your States Gun Laws are responsible for this, and what changes would you support to bring these rates more in line with the national average."

Senator- "My Constituents believe that the Second Amendment is essential to guarantee the Freedom of all Americans.  If we start taking away Guns from law abiding Americans, then only the Criminals will have them."  

This is what I label as a case of:

MISDIRECTION.

Magician, Magic, Cards, Attention

1)  A QUESTION IS ASKED ABOUT A CERTAIN TOPIC. 
                            
2)  THE ANSWER, WHILE STILL ON TOPIC, DOES NOT  
ADDRESS THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE 
QUESTION.
                            
3)  INSTEAD, THE RESPONSE ATTEMPTS TO TURN THE 
CONVERSATION INTO AN AREA OF THE TOPIC NOT 
COVERED BY THE INITIAL QUESTION.

This is a Tactic of many politicians, who want to avoid controversy by not taking a stand that may upset a certain portion of the electorate.

Why do I call it MISDIRECTION?-  Those of you familiar with Stage Magicians know that the success of many illusions relies on getting the audience to pay attention to what one hand is doing, while ignoring the other.  It is this hand that is actually performing the necessary work to make the Trick believable.

MISDIRECTION in the above example, (Gun Control Laws), is an attempt to draw attention away from what is actually asked, and focus it on information that has nothing to do with the question. Since it remains on Topic, the answer is the deception to draw attention away from the initial question, and focus it on unrelated information.

Date-  3/26/2014.


Scroll down for future posts.









LOGIC.  

IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS,  AND VIEWERS OF
"THE BIG BANG THEORY." #2.
Considering all possibilities.
To further introduce this new
category, I am following up the initial addition with an example that may be more familiar to my readers.

How many times have you heard or read something similar to the following;

Question:  What do you think of Obamacare?  Do you think the Affordable Care Act is good for the Nation?

Sometimes you'll get answers like the following;

"Another Government Program promoted by our Socialist President."
                                          or
"As usual, the Republican Party is trying to block anything that 
doesn't benefit the Rich."

While the answers above are from both sides of the Political Spectrum, they
are examples of perhaps the most common type of Logical Fallacy:

AD HOMINEM-  WHICH TRANSLATES, "TO THE PERSON."  

Basically, it is when a judgment is made about a Law, Program or Activity etc, 
not on the merits of the specific subject, but on the person or persons promoting or criticizing it.

In the above example, the question is asking for an opinion about Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act.  In neither answer is there any reference to the new Health Care Law, on whether or not it is a good or desirable program.  Instead the comments are directed at the President and the Republican Party.  This type of answer imparts no useful information, and generally means;

-  That the responder probably doesn't really know why they are either for or against Universal Health Care.

-  That they have not gathered enough information to make an informed decision.

-  They are accepting at face value what is being said or written about in the Media Outlet of their choice.

In the end, society will reap the kind of reward it deserves, and that may be the consequence of how much effort the average American takes to understand the Laws and Policies that impact society as a whole.

Date-  3/31/2014.


Scroll down for future posts.









LOGIC.  

IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, AND VIEWERS
OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY."  #3.


Image result for BIG BANG THEORY- PUBLIC DOMAIN PICTURES

In the following two examples, we are faced with the same category of flawed reasoning.

A)  Statement-  "I think Same- Sex Couples should have the same Rights and Opportunities as Heterosexual Couples."
       
Answer-  "So I guess we have to allow Brothers and Sisters to get married, or let children get married no matter how old they are.  Even worse, such a thing as Bestiality must be legalized."


B)  Statement-  "Churches enjoy Tax Exempt Status, that is why they cannot endorse any Political Party, Candidate or Platform."
      
Answer-  "Really, Priests and Ministers can't be allowed to vote.  If they do, it would be illegal, and the State will shut them down."

The above are actual examples I took from talk radio, but this Logical Fallacy can be found all across the Media.  They are both examples of STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS.

A Straw Man argument takes a proposition or assertion, and refutes it by misstating or misapplying what was said.  Often this is done by claiming to argue against something that was not part of the original content, and attempts to create a position that the opposing side never proposed, endorsed or even addressed.

In the first example, the initial statement only proposed that Same- Sex couples be given status equal to that of Heterosexual couples.  Since Heterosexual couples have restrictions that may or may not allow them to Legally Marry, ( i.e. Age, Bloodlines, Freedom of Choice without Coercion, Bigamy etc.), these would also apply to Same- Sex couples.  There is no reason to think that legalizing Homosexual Unions would exempt them from the guidelines already established for Heterosexual Couples.

The second example applies to Public Political Behavior that occurs at Church Sanctioned Activities, and behavior that is private in nature. Church officials can express their opinions freely, and legally comment on any part of the Election Process, as long as it is not done at an official event that acknowledges their Authority or Capacity within the Church.  Also, I am unaware of any Law that prevents a member of the Clergy from voting, apart from guidelines established for every citizen.

Date-  5/22/2014.


Scroll down for future posts.









LOGIC.


Study, Boy, Book, Glasses, Learning

IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, AND VIEWERS
OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY." #4.  PT 1.

How many times have you watched or listened to a talk show on Radio or Television, where the host introduces an "Expert" to provide commentary to "Prove" a certain point of view.  This can include a vast selection of subject matters; Politics, Law, Medicine, History, Financial Matters etc., just to name a few.

What is unfortunate, is that many listeners or viewers have limited knowledge about the Topic at hand. They are encouraged to take the word of the Guest, who is brought in to answer questions, and offer insight that will end any controversy regarding what conclusions could be drawn from the information given during the Broadcast.



This is the Logical Fallacy of "APPEAL TO AUTHORITY."  This occurs when individuals are encouraged to decide the truth of a subject, solely because of the Background or Reputation of the Person(s) asserting what is factual and undeniable.
      
This emphasizes the idea that there is no need for further analysis, and that you
should accept, without question, the conclusions about the Subject that is being
examined on the show.

This, basically, can be boiled down to the following statement:

THAT IF AN ACKNOWLEDGED OR WELL KNOWN AUTHORITY GIVES AN OPINION ON A SUBJECT, IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT OR DEBATE.
End PT 1.

Date-  6/12/2014.


Scroll down for future posts.










LOGIC.

IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, AND VIEWERS
OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY." #4  PT 2.

Angry Man, Point, Finger, India, Angry









Don't get me wrong, when looking for solutions, it is best to seek out those whose Education, Knowledge and Training are best suited to provide answers.

However, just because someone has M.D. , PhD , LLD, or any other designation on their door or business card, does not indicate Infallibility.

Further, one may have done great things in their Field or Profession in the past, but that does not automatically guarantee success in the future.

So, how are we to know if the advice being given is valid and practical, or is the self-serving ramblings of a self- appointed expert? Here are some guidelines:

ABILITY OR PROFICIENCY IN ONE PROFESSION OR SUBJECT  DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE QUALIFIED TO ADVISE OUTSIDE THEIR REALM OF EXPERTISE- This should be self-explanatory, yet I see it time and time again;

-  Actors advising others on matters of health.

-  Athletes giving financial advice.

-  PhD.s in one discipline, commenting on other
academic fields.

-  Talk show hosts dispensing "Words of Wisdom"
on all sorts of problems, while having no real expert 
knowledge on any subject.

-  Politicians commenting on legal matters, when in 
some cases they have little or no formal training. 

While these might seem obvious to some, there are other
examples that are not so easy to spot.  These are cases 
where the individual may be trained in a certain discipline or
occupation, but is not qualified to speak or advise in every area
of their chosen profession.

This is a situation we often find when discussing two specific fields,
that require special post- graduate education leading to proper 
licensing. They are each bound by a strict Code of Ethics, and can
be sanctioned for any violations.  Yet, these specialists are needed 
to help others, often in situations that can have a permanent life- long
affect that cannot be changed.  I am referring to the MEDICAL and LEGAL
Professions.
End PT 2.

Date-  7/9/2014.


Scroll down for future posts.







LOGIC.

IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, AND VIEWERS
OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY."  #4  PT 3.

Year, Board, 2017, New Year'S Day


Remember one thing;  A Doctor or Lawyer dispensing advice or opinions on a network T.V. or radio 
program is mindful that the show is there primarily to entertain.  It might also educate, but that is secondary.

Often this means promoting, or at least not being critical of dubious and unproven health products, and offering legal advice without being sure of the true nature of the matter as it pertains to our legal system.

Acquiring the education and passing the necessary hurdles to legally practice medicine or law in the U.S. is a tremendous accomplishment, both intellectually and emotionally. You don't fake your way through medical or law school, you earn it.

However, what the general public must understand is that Doctors and Lawyers are, after all, still human beings. Dedicated and brilliant as they may seem, some will succumb to the influences of fame and easy money.  This can sometimes lead to questionable judgments that are not in the best interests of the audience, society or the professional image of the given profession.

Here are some guidelines to keep in mind:

-  No MD is an expert in all fields of medicine, and no attorney is an expert in all parts of the law.  Is the opinion or advice really in their area of expertise, if not, how far removed are they?

-  To what degree will they profit in choosing one side over another, do they have a vested interest in the outcome?

-  Are they promoting themselves as having special knowledge or expertise that is not known or available to others?

-  Sometimes your judged by the company you keep.  Who are their allies?  What types of Individuals or groups agree with the opinions being offered, and who are opposed?

-  This last one especially applies to the medical field-  What type or manner of evidence is provided supporting their point of view?  Is it based on Proper Peer Reviewed Clinical Trials?  Can it withstand scrutiny by the scientific method?  How much of the evidence is anecdotal?  Anecdotal evidence is virtually useless in establishing the worth of any drug or treatment.

So, no matter who you are watching or listening to, always keep an open mind.
Your life may literally depend on it.

Look for future entries in this category.

Date-  8/3/2014.


Scroll down for future posts. 










LOGIC.

IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, AND VIEWERS
OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY."  #5  PT 1.
Image result for STAR TREK- PUBLIC DOMAIN PICTURES

There is one Logical Fallacy that seems to be prevalent in many activities and beliefs that are part of every day life for most people.  It could be Science, Religion, Politics, Economics etc.  It is used so often, that most of us would not recognize it.  Rarely, is the reasoning behind it questioned, for it might mean facing the truth in certain situations that could contradict established opinions.

Here is an example taken from Religion:  "If we can provide evidence that there was a great flood in the distant past, then the Christian Bible was relating a real event. Therefore, since it was proven right in this case, everything else contained within its pages must be accepted as true."

Now, an example taken from Science.

"In his book, ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, Darwin introduces the concept of Natural Selection.  Through careful examination of the Fossil Record, Science accepts that this process is identifiable, verifiable and factual in nature.  Therefore, everything else contained in the book must also be true."

These are examples of the Logical Fallacy TRUTH BY ASSOCIATION.
Here is another example, taken from classic literature.

"The Trojan War, as described by Homer in THE ILIAD, was thought to be a fictional creation by the author.  However, archaeological excavations in Turkey indicate that such a city probably did exist, and there is evidence of destruction by fire. Therefore, If the Trojan War was a real event, then everything written by Homer describing it must be true.  This includes intervention by the Gods, and characters such as Achilles, Odysseus and Hector were real people that actually had the attributes described by Homer." 
End PT 1.

Date-  8/29/2014


Scroll down for future posts.











LOGIC.

IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS,  AND VIEWERS
OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY."  #5  PT 2. 


Rubik'S Cube, Rubik, Cube, Rubik'S, Toy


The basic definition of the Logical Fallacy TRUTH BY ASSOCIATION IS:  IF ONE PART OF A GIVEN SET OR GROUP IS TRUE, THAN ALL OTHER PARTS MUST BE TRUE. ( This is my definition.)

It can be used in different ways, and all of them are equally fallacious.  In fact, it's practically the motto for every form of prejudice that we encounter in daily life.

Consider the following statements;

-  "You should be careful, everyone knows how dangerous (Insert group here) are."

-   "Don't listen to him, he's a (Insert group here), and their all a bunch of crooks."

-   "A (Insert group here) Doctor?  Can't be very good, everyone knows how dumb they are."

Let's turn it around.


-  "She should marry him, everyone knows that (Insert group here) are hard workers"

-  "What did you say the name was?  Oh, that's ok then.  (Insert group here) know
all about computers."

-  "Cheated?  No way, everyone knows (Insert group here) are faithful, and would never do something like that."

Yes, the above examples seem relatively simple.  However, such judgments are usually hidden inside every day conversation, and are not always easy to spot.   

So, be careful and listen more closely when another gives an opinion that labels an entire group as having certain universal characteristics.

Because, one day, you may be in that group.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
Date-  9/24/2014.                                                                                                                                       


Scroll down for future posts.












LOGIC.

IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, AND VIEWERS
OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY." #6.

SHELDON AND HIS MOTHER-   POST HOC, ERGO
PROPTER HOC, AND THE FALLACY OF TRUTH BY
ASSOCIATION. PT 1.

Psychology, Brain, Mind, Mindset


Since Logic now how has its own page and category, I thought it might be appropriate if we took an example of a Logical Fallacy from "THE BIG BANG THEORY."  This one is called POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC.  

Also, this article will expand this example to include the Fallacy of TRUTH BY ASSOCIATION.

The first episode of the third season, entitled "THE ELECTRICAL CAN OPENER FLUCTUATION", Sheldon, Leonard, Howard and Raj return from their trip to the Magnetic North Pole.  As he is walking through the door into the apartment, Sheldon has the following exchange with his mother while on the phone:

"No mother, I could not feel your church group praying for my safety.  The fact that 
I'm home safe does not prove that it worked, that logic is Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc."

Translated from Latin, it means, "After this, therefore because of this."  It is the Logical Fallacy of assuming a causal relationship between two events, and excluding everything else without justification.

To make this easier to understand here is the breakdown;

                            Sheldon goes on his trip,
                                          
                                          Then,

                    Sheldons mom, and her church group pray 
                                      for his safety,

                                           Then,

                            Sheldon returns home safely,

                                         Therefore,

                          The prayer ensured his safety. 


What Sheldon could have pointed out, to his mother, is that his safe return could be the result of one, or  more of the following: 

1)  Proper planning.

2)  Safety procedures that were followed while en route, or on the way home.

3)  Adequate Water, Food, Clothes etc, to amply supply their needs. 

4)  Communications that allowed access to emergency aid from the outside world.

5)  The mental discipline and knowledge to meet any difficulty calmly and intellectually.

In other words, Sheldons mom concluded that the prayer was the reason for a safe
return, when in fact there may have been other reasons.

Before any of my readers, who believe in the power of prayer, say that I can't rule out Divine Intervention, my reply is simple;  

I AM NOT TRYING TO.
END PT 1.

Date: 10/5/2014.


Scroll down for future posts.


LOGIC.

IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, AND VIEWERS
OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY."  #6.

SHELDON AND HIS MOTHER-  POST HOC, ERGO
PROCTOR HOC, AND THE FALLACY OF TRUTH BY 
ASSOCIATION.  PT 2.

Beyond, Death, Life After Death

This is an excellent example, to put the spotlight on a common misconception; Logic, Science, The Scientific Method etc., is ANTI- RELIGION.  Further, that it promotes ATHEISM, and denies existence of a SPIRIT WORLD, and the SUPERNATURAL.  

This ties into another example of FALLACY OF TRUTH BY ASSOCIATION.

In the scene, listen carefully to what Sheldon says.  He never asserts that praying for his safety was in any way ineffective or, that to do so could have no affect on the outcome of the trip.

He just pointed out, quite correctly, that his Mother reached a conclusion that was Logically Invalid.  However, many people of faith equate this criticism with ATHEISTIC IDEOLOGY.  Yet, just because an Atheist would agree with Sheldons assessment, it does not follow that ONLY ATHEISTS would reach the same conclusion.

This is an example of  Fallacy Of Truth By Association;  ANY CONCLUSION REACHED BY AN INDIVIDUAL, THAT IS ALSO SHARED BY MEMBERS OF A CERTAIN GROUP, INDICATES THAT THE INDIVIDUAL MUST BE PART OF THAT GROUP.

Consider the following scenarios;  In the first example we will imagine a conversation that includes Sheldon as an Atheist, in the second he will indicate no specific religious beliefs.


Dialogue from the episode: "THE ELECTRIC CAN OPENER FLUCTUATION."                                               

"No mother, I could not feel your church group praying for my safety.  The fact that I'm home safe does not prove that it worked, that logic is Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc."






           #1                                                                        #2
                                                                                 
    SHELDON THE ATHEIST.                        SHELDON THE UNCOMMITTED.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

"MOM, HOW COULD PRAYING                       "WELL MOM, I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT.
HELP ME IN ANY WAY? IT                               HOWEVER, SINCE IT IS AN EXPRESSION
ASSUMES THE EXISTENCE                            OF FAITH, THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW IF
OF A SUPREME BEING THAT                          IT HAD ANY AFFECT."
CAN CONTROL THE FORCES
OF NATURE."


TO BE CONTINUED...











LOGIC.

THE FALLACY OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE, OR 
THE  "ALL OR NOTHING" MINDSET.  PT 1.

Library, Book, Reading, Computers

Perhaps the best way to Introduce this Common Logical Fallacy, is to take an example from everyday life. Why? Because in one Form, it is an Insidious Example of Psychological Blackmail.

-  Person # 1-  "I know John Doe is your friend, but every Time I Talk to him, he puts me down and Insults my Career Choice."

-  Person # 2-  "You just don't get it.  Its his way of Socializing.  He doesn't mean it.  Just Ignore Him, and he'll stop."

-  Person # 1-  "I've Tried that, but he won't stop. You and I have been friends for a long Time, but I don't want to Deal with him anymore.  If you are going to meet him, I can't come with you.  He doesn't Treat me Right, and I won't give him the chance to Ruin my Night."


Person # 2-  "So that's it Huh?  I have to give up John as a Friend, or you and I can't hang out anymore?  How  Immature."


Person # 1-  "I never said that.  All I said was that I don't want to be around John, because of the way he treats me. We can still do things Together.  We're still Friends."

Person # 2-  "No Way.  John is my Friend, and we get along just find.  I don't know what your problem is, but if you don't like John, than it means you don't really like me.  Either your Johns Friend Too, and we can all hang out together, or your not. 
If you don't like Him, it really means you Hate us both."



Does this sound Familiar?  How many of you have had such a conversation in the past?  Well, it may be Little Comfort, but at least the Irrationality of such Thinking can give a little Solace.  What do I Mean?

See Part 2.







LOGIC.

THE FALLACY OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE, OR 
THE  "ALL OR NOTHING" MINDSET.  PT 2.

Hammerton College, Cambridge, Uk

From this example, we can see one way that this Fallacy is used by the Selfish and the Self- Centered.

Here is a Practical Definition, that we can use in other Situations;

The FALLACY OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE IS: A JUDGMENT THAT ONLY TWO OPINIONS ON ANY SUBJECT ARE POSSIBLE OR VALID, AND THEY BOTH LIE AT OPPOSITE EXTREMES.  THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND, AND NO ROOM FOR CORRECTION, COMPROMISE, OR ADAPTATION. (My Definition).

Here is an example that will further shed light on this Fallacy;

CONSPIRACY THEORIES-  Alien Visitations from other Planets.

Person #1-  "While the Laws of Probability may Indicate that INTELLIGENT LIFE EVOLVED on other Worlds, there is no Practical, Verifiable or Testable Evidence that such Life Forms have visited this Planet."

Person #2-  "Typical Response from someone who doesn't realize that Government
has covered up such Visitations, that is why there is no Evidence for us to Examine."

Person #1-  "What makes you Believe that ALL the Evidence has been Hidden or Destroyed by Government.  I Mean, why should we believe what you say is True, when all you really HAVE IS ACCUSATIONS AND STATEMENTS BACKED UP BY NOTHING ELSE."

Person #2-  "Everyone Knows the Government covers up things like this, to Prevent People from Panicking.  If you don't realize that, then your just another Lamb to be led to the Slaughter, Someone who believes everything our so called Elected Officials Tell Us."


Here is the FALLACY FROM THE ABOVE EXAMPLE. 
THERE ARE ONLY TWO POSSIBILITIES;  EITHER YOU BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT COVERS UP ALL ALIEN VISITATIONS, OR YOU ARE DELUDED ENOUGH TO ACCEPT THE TRUTH ABOUT ANYTHING GOVERNMENT TELLS YOU.
Do you see the Problem? 

See PT 3.







LOGIC.


FAULTY LOGIC, AND GETTING ELECTED.



Hand, Puppet, Snowman, Political, Alex
This post could just as easily have been published on page 8, 2014 ELECTION ISSUES.  However, it does deal with Invalid and Faulty Arguments that violate the rules of Logic and Critical Thinking.  So I have placed it here.

How many of us have run into the line of reasoning, that the following are examples of;

-  "IF WE PASS GUN CONTROL LAWS, THEN ONLY THE CROOKS WILL HAVE GUNS."

-  " ALLOWING IMMIGRANTS INTO THE U.S., WILL RESULT IN DISEASES LIKE EBOLA SPREADING ACROSS THE COUNTRY."

"GAY MARRIAGE BEING MADE LEGAL WILL RESULT IN AN INCREASE OF CHILD MOLESTATION AND BESTIALITY, BECAUSE NO SEXUAL ACTS ARE AGAINST THE LAW ANYMORE."



These are all examples of:

THE FALLACY OF ASSUMING THE CONSEQUENCE-  WHEN YOU ASSERT THAT A GIVEN ACTION WILL AUTOMATICALLY RESULT IN A SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCE.  THIS IS DONE WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT ONE NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THE OTHER.

Problem #1-  It Assumes Facts not in Evidence-  There is no foundation for one to conclude that creating guidelines for Gun Ownership, Entry into the U.S. for Foreign Nationals, or Legalizing Same Sex Marriage, would result in the predictions claimed in the above examples coming true.

-  Gun Control does NOT MEAN GUN ELIMINATION.  Legal ownership is not prevented by law.

-  Medical Evaluations are part of gaining Legal Refugee Status. Further,  There is no evidence that foreign nationals are any more or less likely to be infected with any contagious diseases that are found inside the U.S.

-  The Legalization of Gender Identical Marriage does not create blanket amnesty for anyone engaging in sexual acts already prohibited by law. 


Problem #2-  Claiming a Causal Relationship, where one doesn't exist.

-  Many Laws on the Books inside the U.S. allow all Americans to earn or receive licenses required to legally own and/or operate certain Mechanical Devices such as Vehicles, Construction Equipment , Medical Diagnostic Tools etc. Requiring someone to have the Knowledge, Ability and Mental Capacity to operate such things are not considered intrusions into Individual Rights and Freedoms.  There is no precedent that Firearms would be treated any differently.

-  The Idea that Citizens of other Countries are not properly Immunized compared to American Citizens is not always true, especially if we are speaking about those who are from Nations in North, South or Central America.  It is an amazing comparison, considering the number of irrational exemptions inside the U.S., that allow a parent not to have a child immunized.

-  That the idea of Same- Sex Married couples being so different from Hetero-Sexual ones, that legalization of such unions will cause a complete breakdown of Sexual Mores within the U.S. is without any rational foundation. There is not one shred of credible evidence that such a result is even possible. 

I guess it leaves us with Two basic types of Candidates for elected office:

The Candidate who wants you to fear the opposition before you vote, or

The Candidate who wants you to understand the opposition before you vote.

THE CHOICE IS YOURS.

Date-  10/31/2014.


Scroll down for future posts.











LOGIC.

A LOGICAL FALLACY FROM THE "ANIMAL KINGDOM?"  PT 1.

Lobbying, Blackmail, Business
Have you ever heard two people discussing a Topic, and one makes a statement that seems to have nothing to do with what the Subject Matter?

If you have, welcome to the World of the RED HERRING.

In Hunting, a Red Herring is used to throw the Trackers off the scent of the Quarry.

The RED HERRING-   In an Argument or Debate, it is a Term or Phrase used to distract or move what is being said, off the Points or Subjects being discussed.

Examples;

Statement-
"You can see through Statistics, that a Mandatory Minimum Wage increases the profitability of local businesses."

RED HERRING Answer-  " Socialism, is an Anti- American way of life, and we need to guard against it." 

Statement-  "By having Mandatory Background Checks, we can prevent the Mentally Ill or, the convicted Felon from legally purchasing Guns." 

RED HERRING Answer-  "American Citizens need to look out for Terrorists, and must be prepared."

Statement-  "Teaching the Scientific Method is important at an early age. If we don't, the Future Researchers and Engineers will be unprepared for College Level Courses."

RED HERRING Answer-  "Science is a Gift from God.  It helps us understand the Universe he created."


From the above, we see that the responses pretty much ignore the initial statement, and instead relate information or opinions that are completely outside the area being discussed.
END PT 1.

Date-  11/16/2014.


Scroll down for future posts.











LOGIC.

A LOGICAL FALLACY FROM THE "ANIMAL KINGDOM?"  PT 2.
Direction, Road, Look, Right, Arrow












The RED HERRING is a common Logical Fallacy.  Unfortunately, sometimes it is hard to pick up on, because of its Flagrant Absurdity.

It is the Literal, "COMING OUT OF LEFT FIELD", type of response.  It catches many Debaters off guard, who try to find the Reasoning behind it, but cannot because it is Essentially Nonsensical. 

It is used for many different reasons, and with a little practice can be a Formidable Weapon to create Doubt and Dissension among Opponents and Casual Observers. 

It can be a Developed Skill, used to confuse the Issue at Hand, and directed at those unfamiliar with the Rules of Deductive Reasoning. 

Naturally, there are certain Professions that can turn this Fallacy into an Effective Tool.  It can be used to gain support, or influence others to make decisions that are not considered carefully, and without an eye towards possible Deception.

Here is an example;

Politicians-  There are many issues that a Constituency might consider important, but for Self- Serving Voters voicing their opinion might come across as Narrow Minded, Prejudicial, or Self- Centered, when viewed by the Opposition or the Undecided.  The Politician can then provide an excuse that creates a Scapegoat or Phantom Enemy, to justify the opinions put forth by that part of the Electorate. 

Remember, the RED HERRING HAS NOTHING TO WITH TRUTH, FACTS, AND THE REALITY OF A GIVEN SITUATION.  ITS ONLY PURPOSE IS TO HIDE THE ACTUAL REASONING BEHIND THE OPINIONS BEING EXPRESSED.

IT IS A FALLACY THAT LOOKS FOR EXCUSES TO EXPLAIN THE SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN ISSUES, OR THE JUDGMENT THAT IS BEING EXPRESSED ON GIVEN SUBJECTS. 

Date-  11/20/2014.

Scroll down for future posts.












LOGIC.

THE FALLACIES OF:  

SPECIAL PLEADING.                                 
                        
APPEAL TO A  GREATER POWER.
                               
LACK OF FAITH.
                               
SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE.  

PART 1.

News, False, Concept, Information, Text

You can take your pick, but each of the above FALLACIES applies to the same Basic Category, WHICH CAN BE DEFINED AS:

ANY FORM OF ARGUMENT THAT LEADS TO A CONCLUSION THAT IS BASED ON PURELY SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA, WHICH BY ITS VERY NATURE CANNOT BE ANALYZED, REFUTED OR JUDGED BY THE RULES OF LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING.

Many Times you will see these used by some as a Last Resort to help rescue a Debate, Discussion or Argument they realize is being lost to the Opposition.  It is a Tactic completely designed to appeal to the Spiritual, Religious, or Metaphysical Belief System of those who may pass Judgment on the Merits of each side presented.  

However, it completely leaves the REALM OF CRITICAL THINKING, AND THE RULES OF DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE LOGIC.  It is a PERSONAL EVALUATION, THAT APPLIES SOLELY TO THE INDIVIDUAL ASSERTING IT AS TRUE.

This Individual can seek to Convince others of its value, but this is done on a Purely Emotional Level.  INTELLECTUAL REFLECTION IS NOT REQUIRED, OR EVEN DESIRED.

Now you may Think, What Harm is there in someone Offering this Type of Opinion? Nothing, as long as it applies to the Individual Alone. 
LOOK FOR PART 2.

Date-  11/28/2014.

Scroll down for future posts.  














LOGIC.

THE FALLACIES OF:  

SPECIAL PLEADING.                                 
                        
APPEAL TO A GREATER POWER.
                               
LACK OF FAITH.
                               
SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE.  

PART 2.

Discordance, Ambivalence, Ambiguity

How can these Fallacies harm anyone?  Quite simply, Allowing the Introduction of any Form of Faith Based Morality, Anti- Science Methodology, Subjective Evaluation of any Form of Legal System etc., into the Public Forum as Valid Lines of Reasoning, could result in:

1)  THEOCRATIC LEGISLATION-  Example.

Lawmaker #1-  "Woman should be able to expect equal pay for equal work.  We need to pass Laws against Wage Discrimination."

Lawmaker #2-  "No, the BIBLE says the Man is the Head of the Household. Woman shouldn't be doing work meant for Men, and should be discouraged from taking such Jobs. It is GODS will."

If you disagree with this, and point out that such Legislation is Unconstitutional, you could be Hit with the following-  "You are Denying the Word of God, if you opened your Heart, you would see the Truth."

THIS IS THE "LACK OF FAITH" FALLACY.


2)   BAD SCIENCE.-  Example.

Consumer #1-  "I don't know why anyone would use a Homeopathic Remedy. There
is NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY WORK, AND NO REASON TO EXPECT THAT THEY EVER WILL."

Consumer #2-  "Your Just another Apologist for BIG PHARMA AND THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION.  HOMEOPATHS ARE SPECIALLY TRAINED TO TREAT THE 'WHOLE PERSON',  SO THEY ARE CAPABLE OF DOING MORE THAN A REGULAR M.D., WHO DOESN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THESE NON- TRADITIONAL TREATMENTS."

THIS IS THE "SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE" FALLACY.


From these First Two Examples, we are coming up against LOGICAL FALLACIES,
that by their Very Nature, Cannot be Evaluated on a Factual Basis;

-  Since in the First Example a Higher Power is Invoked, we cannot DISPROVE 'THE WORD' OF AN ENTITY THAT EXISTS SOLELY IN THE FAITH BASED SYSTEMS OF OTHERS.

-  In #2, we are confronted with the idea that one group has an ABILITY THAT ONLY EXISTS IF YOU STUDY THEIR METHODS OF HEALING.  WHAT IS IT? YOU DON'T KNOW BECAUSE YOUR NOT A HOMEOPATH.
LOOK FOR PART 3.

Date-  12/6/2014.

Scroll down for future posts.