Showing posts with label language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label language. Show all posts
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Nothing becomes funny by being labeled so.
"The Elements of Style: Fourth Edition"
by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, page 50
by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, page 50
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Word of the Day - December 19, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Fallacy of the Day - Burden of Proof
Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
More at Nizkor Project
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
- Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
- Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
More at Nizkor Project
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Talking to the Wall and Calling It Poetry
You asked me a question
and then you told me
I didn't answer it.
But, you interrupted
me
before I could finish
to tell me that I didn’t finish.
and then you told me
I didn't answer it.
But, you interrupted
me
before I could finish
to tell me that I didn’t finish.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Fallacy of the Day - Poisoning the Well
Poisoning the Well
This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims.
- Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
- Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
Example: A mentally ill man is trying to tell you about a murderer a pedophile and a rapist. Don't listen to him. Only a crazy man would try to talk about murder, pedophilia and rape.
More...
Friday, October 1, 2010
Word of the Day - October 1, 2010
Funny1 a.
1. Affording fun mirth-producting, comical, facetious.
2. Curious, queer, odd strange. colloq.
Example according to someone recently blocked by me on Facebook: "...every 37.8 seconds, somewhere in America a man is battered, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey."
1 The Oxford English Dictionary: Volume IV F-G. New York: Oxford University Press, 1933. p609.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Concept of the Day - September 29, 2010
A double bind is a dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, with one message negating the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other, so that the person will be automatically wrong regardless of response. The nature of a double bind is that the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore cannot resolve it or opt out of the situation.
...the essence of a double bind is two conflicting demands, each on a different logical level, neither of which can be ignored or escaped. This leaves the victim torn both ways, so that whichever demand they try to meet, the other demand cannot be met. "I must do it, but I can't do it" is a typical description of the double bind experience.
For a double bind to be effective, the victim must be unable to confront or resolve the conflict between the demand placed by the primary injunction and that of the secondary injunction. In this sense, the double bind differentiates itself from a simple contradiction to a more inexpressible internal conflict, where the victim really wants to meet the demands of the primary injunction, but fails each time through an inability to address the situation's incompatibility with the demands of the secondary injunction. Thus, victims may express feelings of extreme anxiety in such a situation, as they attempt to fulfil the demands of the primary injunction albeit with obvious contradictions in their actions.
More...
Example: Judge to young man: "Leave that woman alone!", while the man knows the woman will approach and antagonize him to get into trouble.
...the essence of a double bind is two conflicting demands, each on a different logical level, neither of which can be ignored or escaped. This leaves the victim torn both ways, so that whichever demand they try to meet, the other demand cannot be met. "I must do it, but I can't do it" is a typical description of the double bind experience.
For a double bind to be effective, the victim must be unable to confront or resolve the conflict between the demand placed by the primary injunction and that of the secondary injunction. In this sense, the double bind differentiates itself from a simple contradiction to a more inexpressible internal conflict, where the victim really wants to meet the demands of the primary injunction, but fails each time through an inability to address the situation's incompatibility with the demands of the secondary injunction. Thus, victims may express feelings of extreme anxiety in such a situation, as they attempt to fulfil the demands of the primary injunction albeit with obvious contradictions in their actions.
More...
Example: Judge to young man: "Leave that woman alone!", while the man knows the woman will approach and antagonize him to get into trouble.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Concept of the Month - September 23, 2010
Double Standard
The term double standard, coined in 1912,[1] refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, typically without a good reason for having said difference.[2] A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain applications (often of a word or phrase) are perceived as acceptable to be used by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—taboo—when used by another group.
A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law.
Example:
The term double standard, coined in 1912,[1] refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, typically without a good reason for having said difference.[2] A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain applications (often of a word or phrase) are perceived as acceptable to be used by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—taboo—when used by another group.
A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law.
Example:
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Fallacy of the Day - Argumentum ad numerum
Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right.
Example: "Why do you want to ban...or, I'm sorry....because in reality you're not banning...you're book burning...but why do do you want to take away from 600,000 people, a magazine they enjoy reading?" *
*Bob Beierle, Creative Insight. Our Town Magazine Warren County Edition - Issue #19, September 8, 2010. Copyright (c) 2010 **
**The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” More...
Example: "Why do you want to ban...or, I'm sorry....because in reality you're not banning...you're book burning...but why do do you want to take away from 600,000 people, a magazine they enjoy reading?" *
*Bob Beierle, Creative Insight. Our Town Magazine Warren County Edition - Issue #19, September 8, 2010. Copyright (c) 2010 **
**The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” More...
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Word of the Day - 9/11/10
pretext - n. a false reason concealing a real reason; misleading excuse; pretense.
Example: He wasn't taking his medication, so I made him cry.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Word of the Day - September 1, 2010
picayune adj
Definition of PICAYUNE
: of little value : paltry; also : petty, small-minded
— pic·a·yun·ish\ adjective
More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)