Mind's Eye Re: Deception

Did you see that lovely golden brooch unearthed in Bulgaria? 2400
years old.

Yes- Romney retired like a gentleman. With all the media bias and
internet chatter one is back to "don't believe everything you read in
the papers"- at least I am. And the experts! There are some less known
items- like Farrakhan's call for a mass Black uprising against Whites
if Obama lost. Anyway, Obama now owns his office sans blaming Bush-
we'll see what happens. No use crying in one's beer- so I bought a new
car today. :-)

On Nov 8, 10:21 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I suspect the ghost of Diogenes the Cynic is still looking for an
> > > honest man.
>
> > > On Nov 5, 10:41 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> 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,
> > > > walter.carnie...@cle.unicamp.br- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--