Mind's Eye Re: Deception

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

--