Mind's Eye Re: Deception

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

--