Posted by Larry Hoover on May 19, 2005, at 8:48:55
In reply to Re: (((alexandra))), posted by All Done on May 17, 2005, at 1:11:09
I don't know what went wrong with my computer last night, but it crashed my IE twice when I was trying to answer this thread. Might be karma. Or it might not. ;-)
> I've read logic puzzle books just for fun. I wonder if Larry has, too.
Many years ago, perhaps, but I find them tiring now. I have to limit my cognitive "expenses", as they are on a budget. Just like you manage money.
What draws me to this sort of issue really arises from formal debate of ideas. Recognizing the various fallacies, arguments of distraction, and so on. They are nearly all ancient recognitions of faulty thought: petitio principii (begging the question....you must believe the assumption(s) in order to accept the conclusion); argumentum ad vericundiam (appealing to a higher authority for the "truth", or expert opinion); argumentum ad hominem (numerous variants, all meant to distract the argument to the attributes of the presenter, rather than the issue at hand e.g. argumentum ad hominem circumstantis, trivializing an economic argument posed by a person who is unemployed); and of course, the direct fallacies known as denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent. Those are the formal names of what we've been doing here, determining the validity of propositional arguments. Some propositional arguments are so absurd, they have a special label: non sequitur, Latin for "it does not follow". In those cases, the conclusion is logically unrelated to the proposition.
Lots more at:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.htmlMore examples, and nicely explained, at:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.htmlKnowing how to both discover these arguments, and to present them without yourself falling into using them, is a real art. I really like the challenge in doing so.
The difficulty in employing such arguments is that some people take *all* argument as being ad hominem (directed at the person), even if it is absolutely clear that the argument is about an idea. Anyway.....
> Even if I can't figure them out all the time (or maybe even most), I love the process of thinking it through and trying to figure out the right answer. I can get lost in my thoughts that way. It's a nice escape.
>
> And when I know there's a right answer and I've figured it out...woohoo! Yeah, I'm a geek.
>
> :)Yes, then you are indeed a geek.
:-)
Lar
Geek
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:498245
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050513/msgs/499805.html