Re: Mind's Eye Re: Deception

If memory serves, I think the Turks have a version of mud wrestling.
How does one? Find a muddy bog and go at it!

I went to the dealer for an oil change and drove out with a new car
that caught my eye. Your car sounds sexy- is it? Have already done the
car bit through the years. Could be chapter headings in a memoir.
Anyway, this one is a slimmer driveway ornament. My children will
freak out. :-)

Goethe did some scientific research in his day but lived prior to the
Industrial Revolution so maybe that accounts for this remark.

I do listen to BBC at night though the news of Africa doesn't interest
me much and find the new casters a bit giggly- wishful longing for
Alistair Cook (sp?). The other options are moonbats or classical music
which is often jarring rather than soothing. Have given up Charlie
Rose due to his bias and personality. Left with a ticking clock and my
thoughts. Oh well!


On Nov 9, 7:41 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Never really imagine you as a mud wrestler rigs.  How does one wrestle
> mud by the way?  Sounds a bit like politics.  I bought a new car too -
> or at least ordered one for the new year.  A VW Scirocco - 2 litre
> diesel with blue motion technology that gets 64 mpg and does 0 -60 in
> 9.3 seconds - if one believed the salesman the energy it recycles from
> braking would power a small town!  Nice looking beast one can easily
> imagine with a saddle.
>
> Not worth diluting beer over Romney, but I have noticed Obama is only
> the drag version.  There have been no calls for the  Carnielli paper
> from this group.  It's mostly uninteresting, other than in that a
> professional philosopher has noticed life slides on bull-grease.
> What's really in my mind on this relates to rigsy saying that Goethe
> was perhaps the last person to have a grasp of 'everything' - in fact,
> even the great man was largely outside the kick off of modern
> science.  The modern problem is disinformation and education based in
> old hat.
>
> Our most educated broadcast news channel here is C4.  Last night they
> did a bit of a review on Britain's hapless inquiry systems.  A Tory MP
> popped up to describe them as
> 1. a means to kick problems into the long grass
> 2. a means to cover-up in public pretending to do something with the
> intent of changing nothing
> 3. genuine and largely Victorian (forgotten) means to bring about
> radical change by addressing real problems.
>
> We have a paedophile scandal here around Jimmy Saville - a pathetic
> and now dead TV personality.  Politicians are supposedly involved and
> I'm connected in that my brother and father (school teachers) asked me
> for advice when I was a cop - on Saville and some git associated with
> him who ran a school disco.  I got the git (who has just been re-
> arrested) on unrelated criminal matters.  We were sure he was abusing
> young girls - but I can't tell you how hard it was to do anything when
> evidence comes from people who can easily be further abused and
> discredited by scumbag lawyers.  My advice to my brother was that the
> police and wider CJS was hapless - in another enquiry I was reduced to
> pinning a drunk driving charge on a perpetrator in exasperation over
> the real case.
>
> The other side of this stuff is false complaints and mad people who
> claim to be experts and victims and are neither.  In recent years I've
> worked with an academic with a distinct tinge of madness (personally
> delightful) who gets lots of the child abuse stuff right and who was
> able to get bunches of cops to really look at street situations and
> see the abuse.  The woman concerned would be easy to attack on the
> basis of her personal life, drinks a lot, shags fairly
> indiscriminately - and has the score right.  I've just been able to
> interview some of the cops in terms of before and after - all are
> concerned at just how much their eyes have been opened.
>
> My views on deception in argument are based in control fraud.  There
> are similarities between the rings that form to commit fraud and abuse
> rings.  I suspect the 'mechanisms' may be the base of party
> politics.
>
> On 9 Nov, 08:29, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What you are saying is the crimes against humanity and murders that
> > Bush ordered is okay?
>
> > You need to buy a new car  and put a saddle in it to stay out of the mud.
> > Allan
>
> > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:12 AM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 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 -
>
> > > --
>
> > --
> >  (
> >   )
> > |_D Allan
>
> > Life is for moral, ethical and
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--