Re: Mind's Eye Re: Deception

Better to sit in the saddle then wrestle in the mud...

On Nov 8, 1:23 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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" <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 -

--