Re: Mind's Eye Re: Deception

Allan- I argued against the policies of Bush 41 and 43 on a political
forum. Past tense.

On Nov 9, 2:29 am, 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 truthful living.
>
> I am a Natural Airgunner -
>
>  Full of Hot Air & Ready To Expel It Quickly.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--