Mind's Eye Re: Deception

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

--