# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  calling all philosophy majors

## chm2023

Watched Bush's speech last night (almost won the poll, I predicted 5 references to 9-11, there were actually 6.  So close!!!)  Anyway, I was trying to remember what you call the fallacy of this argument:  we invaded Iraq and now there are a lot of terrorists in training terror there, therefore we are justified in our invasion.  (The example I remember when learning about this particular sort of fallacious argument was the famous one of the man who kills his parents then asks for mercy as he is an orphan).  What is this called?????  I HATE this memory erosion stuff!!!

----------


## rbaker

Now I aint no bar room philosopher. Im just a plain old country boy. But, it seems that you were more intent on counting references to 9-11 than in listening to the Presidents Message. What do you call that?

----------


## chm2023

Low tolerance for spin.  

Now, what do you call using that  "I'm just an old country boy" bromide?

----------


## ksquared

> chm2023 wrote:Watched Bush's speech last night (almost won the poll, I predicted 5 references to 9-11, there were actually 6. So close!!!) Anyway, I was trying to remember what you call the fallacy of this argument: we invaded Iraq and now there are a lot of terrorists in training terror there, therefore we are justified in our invasion.


Far be it for me to remind you that we have 3 categories of fallacies: material fallacy (misstatement of facts), verbal fallacies (improper use of words) and logical fallacies (a mistake in the process of inference). Which of these 3 categories would you like to place your attractive but unreliable piece of reasoning?

----------


## chm2023

> chm2023 wrote: Far be it for me to remind you that we have 3 categories of fallacies: material fallacy (misstatement of facts), verbal fallacies (improper use of words) and logical fallacies (a mistake in the process of inference). Which of these 3 categories would you like to place your attractive but unreliable piece of reasoning?


Obviously logical but there is a more precise descriptor of this as a fallacious argument, have to look it up.    (Nice bit of paralipsis BTW;) )

----------


## chip anderson

Since when did a phylosopher contribute anything toward the solution of an immediate problem?  A rare few greeks may have contributed something toward future society as a whole, but today they are mostly professional student types who don't want to work for a living.  They sit around and pontificate as though they had the answer to the worlds problems.  Rarely one of them may actually find a teaching job at a college but basicly they neither spin nor sew and contribute little, occasionally having more importance given to thier words than they are worthy of by virtue of having been professional students.


Look more to the common man for your solutions.  GM always showed a profit when it's presidents were promoted from the production ranks.  They started loseing when they hired over educated experts.

Chip

----------


## ksquared

> Chip astutly states: Since when did a phylosopher contribute anything toward the solution of an immediate problem? .... but basicly they neither spin nor sew and contribute little........


 I would never be one to tell Chip that his views on philosophy are rather narrow in scope or that some of what he posts would be considered to be rather stereotypical in nature. 

I wont bother to explain philosophy contains many practical applications including but not limited to  ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, ontology and logic. 

 It would be most inappropriate for me to point out that the study of these elements could help him understand his notion of what knowledge, the concept of evidence, and justified beliefs really are. 

Nor will I mention that an in depth knowledge of this subject would help him as he tries to follow along in these type of everyday rhetorical discussions. 

Chip would probably be reluctant to admit that he doesnt have time for such things since working on his spelling is taking up all his time.

----------


## cinders831

> I would never be one to tell Chip that his views on philosophy are rather narrow in scope or that some of what he posts would be considered to be rather stereotypical in nature. 
> 
> I wont bother to explain philosophy contains many practical applications including but not limited to  ethics, epistemology, aesthetics, ontology and logic. 
> 
>  It would be most inappropriate for me to point out that the study of these elements could help him understand his notion of what knowledge, the concept of evidence, and justified beliefs really are. 
> 
> Nor will I mention that an in depth knowledge of this subject would help him as he tries to follow along in these type of everyday rhetorical discussions. 
> 
> Chip would probably be reluctant to admit that he doesnt have time for such things since working on his spelling is taking up all his time.


 Wow, you seem to be having a rather bad day.  I would hope thats why someone who's veiws are different then yours can catch such insults.  I hope things look up and that you can soon enjoy educated banter with other optical folks on this forum.

----------


## Spexvet

This answer from Walt (remember Walt?):

"The Pygmalion Effect (Self fulfilling prophesy), also see "convoulted logic" and "reverse logic". 

http://www.accel-team.com/pygmalion/ 

http://www.accel-team.com/pygmalion/prophecy_01.html 

"The concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy can be summarized in these key principles: 

- We form certain expectations of people or events 
- We communicate those expectations with various cues 
- People tend to respond to these cues by adjusting their behavior to match them 
- The result is that the original expectation becomes true"

----------


## Steve Machol

> Anyway, I was trying to remember what you call the fallacy of this argument: we invaded Iraq and now there are a lot of terrorists in training terror there, therefore we are justified in our invasion.


From my wife, who was a reader for a Critical Thinking class for 7 years:




> She is probably thinking this is Circular Reasoning, but that's not correct.
> 
> Premise: We invaded Iraq
> 
> Premise: Now there are terrorists in Iraq
> 
> Implied Premise: We invaded Iraq because of the terrorists there.
> 
> Implied Premise: Our invasion of Iraq would be justified if there were terrorists there.
> ...


Note: The last time my wife dared to express her views on OptiBoard I received a threat from someone that indicated if she continued to do this, he would _go after_ her.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Spexvet

> From my wife, who was a reader for a Critical Thinking class for 7 years:
> 
> 
> Note: The last time my wife dared to express her views on OptiBoard I received a threat from someone that indicated if she continued to do this, he would _go after_ her.


Seriously?

----------


## OPTIDONN

> Wow, you seem to be having a rather bad day. I would hope thats why someone who's veiws are different then yours can catch such insults. I hope things look up and that you can soon enjoy educated banter with other optical folks on this forum.


WOW! Do you need a hug?:o Now I don't agree with chm's view of the president or her view on the Iraq war. I feel that we need to be there. He was a threat in the past, showed that he could not be trusted and if given the opportunity would strike us. He terrorizes his own people giving them such perks as poison gas, rape rooms and genocide. He needed to be removed and leaving now would create a power vacuum that would quickly be filled by more fanatics. We lost a friend over there and are proud of what he has accomplished. But Cinders made a good point. So you don't agree with Chip and that makes you feel like you have to make such remarks!! Well ksquared i R sO hapiE u SpeL Goood! Because it seems thats all you can do you did not even contribute anything to this thread other than a personal attack!! I am going to assume that you are having a bad day! I don't think that other wise some one would make such a stupid series of comments!!:angry: :finger: 

People like cinders and Chip have every right to express how they feel with out being attacked.

----------


## ksquared

> cinders831 writes:  Wow, you seem to be having a rather bad day.....


 Thank-you for your concern. Actually, Im having a very good word of the day. So many words, sadly, so few opportunities. I certainly wouldnt want anyone to know that I am looking forward to the day when I too can enjoy some educated banter.

PS:Optidonn -Are you trying to tell me that this call to arms is just another attempt by CHM2023 to start yet another discussion about Bush and the war in Iraq? Oh my. I thought CHM had started a discussion on philosophy.   :cry:

----------


## OPTIDONN

Hmm ksquared you like to read. Try and read past the heading of that thread. Was she asking a general question on philosophy? I did not get that impression.
I admit that I got a little heated. I get that way some times and I tried to attack you and that was not right. I feel that Chip did make a good point. It sometimes seems that today people who have an active interest in philosophy would rather talk and amuse them selves by the sound of there own voice, they think long term but don't accomplish much. Many leadership roles require people who will act, but they need to act in the right way. I think the days of Alexander the Great and Marcus Aurlious (Can't spell his name), people who were either philosophers or taught by philosophers and capable of leading, are gone. Corporate poster philosophy is now poisoning the mind todays leaders. Now I have to say that the one thing that bugs me are people that will quickly disregard what some one has said because they feel that intellectually it is inferior any person who has a love for knowledge should never be so quick to diregard what someone has said. 

Again I must apologize for being a jerk.
Donn

----------


## 1968

> Watched Bush's speech last night (almost won the poll, I predicted 5 references to 9-11, there were actually 6. So close!!!) Anyway, I was trying to remember what you call the fallacy of this argument: we invaded Iraq and now there are a lot of terrorists in training terror there, therefore we are justified in our invasion. (The example I remember when learning about this particular sort of fallacious argument was the famous one of the man who kills his parents then asks for mercy as he is an orphan). What is this called????? I HATE this memory erosion stuff!!!


If youre a philosopher on the left side of the aisle, I think the answer is _ignoratio elenchi_ - aka the Fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion or the Fallacy of Irrelevance:

Premise: There are WMD in Iraq.
Premise: WMD may threaten the US.
Conclusion: The US is justified in removing terrorists from Iraq.

If youre a philosopher on the right side of the aisle, the answer is that there is no logical fallacy. He or she might argue that being mistaken about facts, then revising your premises and conclusions based upon those facts, is not a logical fallacy. For example:

Premise: There are WMD in Iraq.
Premise: WMD may threaten the US.
Conclusion: The US is justified in removing WMD from Iraq.

Revised premise: There are no WMD in Iraq, but there are terrorists in Iraq.
Revised premise: Terrorists in Iraq may threaten the US.
New conclusion: The US is justified in removing terrorists from Iraq.

----------


## 1968

> Far be it for me to remind you that we have 3 categories of fallacies: material fallacy (misstatement of facts), verbal fallacies (improper use of words) and logical fallacies (a mistake in the process of inference). Which of these 3 categories would you like to place your attractive but unreliable piece of reasoning?


It stands to reason that if she were talking about "reasoning" it would be a logical fallacy.

----------


## 1968

I just want to preface this by stating that I am not a Republican or Democrat, nor a conservative or liberal.




> Premise: We invaded Iraq
> 
> Premise: Now there are terrorists in Iraq
> 
> Implied Premise: We invaded Iraq because of the terrorists there.
> 
> Implied Premise: Our invasion of Iraq would be justified if there were terrorists there.
> 
> Conclusion: We are justified in invading Iraq.
> ...


Although some may have inferred it, Bush did NOT imply that [w]e invaded Iraq because of the terrorists there. Bush made it clear long ago that we were going after WMD in Iraq. (To ignore those previous comments on this subject would be the Fallacy of Exclusion.) Consequently, the false premise here (and in chm2023s original post) is that Bushs latest remarks were an attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq, as opposed to justifying the _continued presence_ in Iraq.

[By the way, interesting way to approach the topic!]

----------


## rbaker

If you wish to understand a philosopher, do not ask what he says, but find out what he wants.

Nietzsche


Philosophy is an unusually ingenious attempt to think fallaciously.

Bertrand Russell

----------


## chm2023

> From my wife, who was a reader for a Critical Thinking class for 7 years:
> 
> 
> Note: The last time my wife dared to express her views on OptiBoard I received a threat from someone that indicated if she continued to do this, he would _go after_ her.


Thanks to your wife!!!   I was thinking of circular reasoning but the time element muddied that.  My hat is off to her, philosophy was the single most difficult subject I ever tackled (and as is evident, you can see it didn't take!!)

----------


## chm2023

> This answer from Walt (remember Walt?):
> 
> "The Pygmalion Effect (Self fulfilling prophesy), also see "convoulted logic" and "reverse logic". 
> 
> http://www.accel-team.com/pygmalion/ 
> 
> http://www.accel-team.com/pygmalion/prophecy_01.html 
> 
> "The concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy can be summarized in these key principles: 
> ...


Don't think this is right:  did the US communicate we expected terrorists to start operating in Iraq?  Did terrorists respond to our expectations?  

See Steve M's wife's remarks, seem in line with the situation.

----------


## chm2023

> I just want to preface this by stating that I am not a Republican or Democrat, nor a conservative or liberal.
> 
> Although some may have inferred it, Bush did NOT imply that [w]e invaded Iraq because of the terrorists there. Bush made it clear long ago that we were going after WMD in Iraq. (To ignore those previous comments on this subject would be the Fallacy of Exclusion.) Consequently, the false premise here (and in chm2023s original post) is that Bushs latest remarks were an attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq, as opposed to justifying the _continued presence_ in Iraq.
> 
> [By the way, interesting way to approach the topic!]


I think you're right, strictly speaking.  

But I suggest that the continued references to 9-11 (attacks by terrorists) as implied (retroactive!) rationale for invading Iraq are constantly and deliberately linked by Bush et al rhetorically to our current rationale for continued presence (attacks by terrorists).  Why else do about half of Americans believe Saddam was responsible for 9-11??

----------


## Spexvet

> Since when did a phylosopher contribute anything toward the solution of an immediate problem? A rare few greeks may have contributed something toward future society as a whole, but today they are mostly professional student types who don't want to work for a living. They sit around and pontificate as though they had the answer to the worlds problems. Rarely one of them may actually find a teaching job at a college but basicly they neither spin nor sew and contribute little, occasionally having more importance given to thier words than they are worthy of by virtue of having been professional students.
> 
> 
> Look more to the common man for your solutions. GM always showed a profit when it's presidents were promoted from the production ranks. They started loseing when they hired over educated experts.
> 
> Chip


You've participated in some very philosophical conversations, here, Chip. Don't forget - in some circles, Christianity is considered a religious philosophy!

----------


## 1968

> I think you're right, strictly speaking.


I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or an insult!




> But I suggest that the continued references to 9-11 (attacks by terrorists) as implied (retroactive!) rationale for invading Iraq are constantly and deliberately linked by Bush et al rhetorically to our current rationale for continued presence (attacks by terrorists).


If one perceives Bush's rationale like this...

Premise #1: Terrorists are a threat to the US.
Premise #2: Terrorists are in Iraq.
Conclusion: We should removed terrorists from Iraq.

...then the reference to 9/11 is merely to support premise #1.




> Why else do about half of Americans believe Saddam was responsible for 9-11??


If 50% of Americans are unable to decipher the truth by now, should we blame their gullibility or the person who takes advantage of it? Or both?!

----------


## 1968

> If you wish to understand a philosopher, do not ask what he says, but find out what he wants.
> 
> Nietzsche
> 
> 
> Philosophy is an unusually ingenious attempt to think fallaciously.
> 
> Bertrand Russell


The philosopher is Nature's pilot. And there you have our difference: to be in hell is to drift: to be in heaven is to steer.

George Bernard Shaw

----------


## EyeManFla

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant 
Who was very rarely stable 

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar 
Who could think you under the table 

David Hume could out consume 
Schopenhauer and Hegel 

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine 
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 
'Bout the raising of the wrist 
Socrates, himself, was permanently ****** 


John Stuart Mill, of his own free will 
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill 

Plato they say, could stick it away 
Half a crate of whiskey every day 

Aristotle, Aristotle was a ****** for the bottle 
Hobbes was fond of his dram 
And René Descartes was a drunken fart 
"I drink, therefore I am"Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed 
A lovely little thinker 
But a ****** when he's ******

----------


## Darryl Meister

I think we are now dealing with the fallacy of _ad hoc reasoning_. The original premise behind invading Iraq proved invalid, since the existence of WMD was never confirmed, so a new and slightly revised hypothesis -- including a premise that now assumes the existence of terrorists -- has been asserted to save the original hypothesis behind the need to invade the country.

----------


## rinselberg

> Immanuel Kant was a real pissant 
> Who was very rarely stable ...


_To do is to be --Socrates. To be is to do --Plato. Do-be-do-be-do --Sinatra._


Wonder who came up with that one?

credit:
http://www.i18nguy.com/humor/doing-being.html



rinselberg salutes OptiBoard's "Real Men of Genius"
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...38&postcount=4

_... inspired by one of OptiBoard's newest members._

----------

